Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1912

Cotter v. Nathan & Hurst Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Decided January 15, 1912 · Rugg

211 Mass. 31; 97 N.E. 144; 1912 Mass. LEXIS 715

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

Pollack v. Kelly (Mass. 1977)
Cheraska v. Ohanasian (Mass. 1927)
Morse v. O'Hara (Mass. 1924)
Sherman v. Collingwood (Mass. 1915)
Parker v. Lewis J. Bird Co. (Mass. 1915)
Farris v. St. Paul's Baptist Church (Mass. 1914)
Long v. Quinn Bros. (Mass. 1913)
Shawmut Commercial Paper Co. v. Cram (Mass. 1912)
Regal v. Lyon (Mass. 1912)
Oliver Ditson Co. v. Testa (Mass. 1912)
Cressey v. Cressey (Mass. 1912)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Rugg, C. J.

It is the settled rule of practice, frequently and ■ uniformly maintained under R. L. c. 173, § 96, as amended by *33St. 1906, c. 342, § 2, and St. 1910, c. 555, § 4, and under similar provisions of earlier statutes, that this court has no jurisdiction to consider an appeal until there has been a judgment. Case v. Ladd, 2 Allen, 130. Bennett v. Clemence, 3 Allen, 431. Commonwealth v. Gloucester, 110 Mass. 491, 497. Marshall v. Merritt, 13 Allen, 274. Kellogg v. Kimball, 122 Mass. 163. O’Connell, petitioner, 174 Mass. 253, 262. See Brooks v. Shaw, 197 Mass. 376.

The only way in which an interlocutory order or decision in an action at law can be brought to the consideration of the full court is by report of the justice presiding at the trial. R. L. c. 173, § 105, as amended by St. 1910, c. 555, § 5.

Appeal dismissed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.