Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1926

McKin v. Siegel

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Decided May 29, 1926 · Braley

256 Mass. 269; 152 N.E. 312; 1926 Mass. LEXIS 1207

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision.

Pins v. I. J. Fox, Inc. (Mass. 1939)
Wilich v. Kwieckinski (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1974)
Altschuler v. Boston Harbor Marina, Inc. (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1974)
Bondsville Realty, Inc. v. Diamond International Corp. (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1970)
Atlantic Refining Co. v. Weener (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1961)
Schnepel v. Kidd (Mass. 1954)
Guertin v. Lucier (Mass. 1953)
Irving v. Bonjorno (Mass. 1951)
Gurll v. Massasoit Greyhound Ass'n (Mass. 1949)
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Division of Employment Security v. Bartels (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1947)
Commonwealth v. Gricus (Mass. 1944)
Handrahan v. North Main Street Garage, Inc. (Mass. 1942)
Syriopoulos v. Cormier (Mass. 1937)

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

Braley, J.

It cannot be held as matter of law that the denial of the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict was erroneous. The bill of exceptions contains no statement that all the material evidence is before us. York v. Barstow, 175 Mass. 167. Cohen v. Longarini, 207 Mass. 556. The *270defendant’s exceptions to the refusal of the motion for a new trial also show no error of law. It was for the trial judge to determine in his discretion whether the verdict was against the evidence and the weight of the evidence, or whether the damages were excessive. The other grounds alleged, whether the verdict was contrary to law, or whether the court erroneously refused to order a verdict for the defendant, or whether the verdict was contrary to and inconsistent with any rule relating to damages, were all questions which might have been raised at the trial, and therefore cannot be considered at the hearing on the motion. Sanger v. Milbury, 250 Mass. 580. The exceptions which are plainly frivolous are overruled with double costs, with interest at twelve per cent a year on the verdict, as provided in G. L. c. 211, § 10.

So ordered.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.