Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

175 Mass. 558

Holt v. Roberts

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1900-03-12

<p>Petition to vacate Judgment — Matter apparent on Record — Appeal.</p> <p>A petition under St. 1895, c. 234, to vacate a judgment of the Superior Court is properly denied, and the judgment must be affirmed, if there is nothing on the record which this court can consider under the appeal.</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently January 1954

2 state decisions

Relies on Cobb v. Hale

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1900-03-12

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Holmes, C. J.

¶1These are two petitions under St. 1895, c. 234, to vacate judgments of the Superior Court in replevin for a return and damages, rendered upon nonsuits. The petitions were denied on hearing in the Superior Court, and' the petitioner appealed. Nothing appears on the record beyond these bare facts. The petitions allege, to be sure, that the damages recovered are the value of the chattels ordered to be returned, and that thus she is charged twice for the same things. We are asked to look at a document which purports to be the charge to the jury who assessed the damages, and which, it is said, supports the allegation. But the document is no part of the record and cannot be considered by us. Moreover, it appears by the certificate of the justice who denied the petition's that the charge was before him at the hearing. We cannot know what explanations or further facts were proved, and of course cannot say that his decision not to retry the cases must have been wrong. Cobb v. Hale, 172 Mass. 387.

¶2Petitions denied and judgments affirmed.

/175/mass/558 · .json · Public domain