DeVeer v. Pierson

27 Citing cases

  1. Saporita v. Litner

    371 Mass. 607 (Mass. 1976)   Cited 19 times
    Noting that "the rule has not been rigidly applied" and surveying certain common law exceptions

    Old Colony Trust Co. v. Clarke, 291 Mass. 17, 23 (1935). DeVeer v. Pierson, 222 Mass. 167, 174-175 (1915), Beaman v. Elliot, 10 Cush. 172, 173 (1852). Borden v. Borden, 5 Mass. 67, 77 (1809).

  2. Strong v. Merchants Mutual Insurance Co.

    322 N.E.2d 765 (Mass. 1975)   Cited 9 times

    On the other hand, if "the facts on which the rights of the parties depend have not been ascertained at the trial it is within the power of the court, in its discretion and of its own motion, to recommit the cause for re-trial." DeVeer v. Pierson, 222 Mass. 167, 175 (1915). See Watkins v. Simplex Time Recorder Co. 316 Mass. 217, 224 (1944); Mackey v. Rootes Motors Inc. 348 Mass. 464, 469 (1965).

  3. Mackey v. Rootes Motors Inc.

    348 Mass. 464 (Mass. 1965)   Cited 17 times

    "Where the facts on which the rights of the parties depend have not been ascertained at the trial it is within the power of the court, in its discretion and of its own motion, to recommit the cause for re-trial." DeVeer v. Pierson, 222 Mass. 167, 175. Lenari v. Kingston, 342 Mass. 705, 710. Lattuca v. Cusolito, 343 Mass. 747, 753. "Whether the rehearing should be before the court or before a master is for the Superior Court to decide.

  4. Easterling v. Cleckler

    115 So. 2d 516 (Ala. 1959)   Cited 3 times

    The primary question here presented is whether this appellant has been deprived of his right to further prosecute his suit because of his conveyance by warranty deed of all of his interest in the suit property. An absolute transfer pendente lite of the realty involved will deprive plaintiff, in a suit such as this, of the right to prosecute the suit to final determination, but, if plaintiff is still interested by virtue of the warranty of title in the deed, the right to prosecute the suit to final judgment is not defeated. Holder v. Taylor, 233 Ala. 477, 172 So. 761; Burt v. Brandon, 230 Ala. 85, 159 So. 691; McDowell v. Herren, 219 Ala. 370, 122 So. 336; DeVeer v. Pierson, 222 Mass. 167, 178, 110 N.E. 154, 159; 1 C.J.S. Abatement and Revival § 106b, p. 151. There was a similar problem before this Court in the case of Holder v. Taylor, supra.

  5. American Employers' Ins. Co. v. Cohen

    135 N.E.2d 918 (Mass. 1956)   Cited 5 times

    The interlocutory decree denying the motion to recommit and the final decree dismissing the bill must be reversed and the suit must be further heard by a master or by the court. DeVeer v. Pierson, 222 Mass. 167, 175. Watkins v. Simplex Time Recorder Co. 316 Mass. 217, 224-225.

  6. Mark v. Kahn

    333 Mass. 517 (Mass. 1956)   Cited 52 times
    In Mark v. Kahn, 333 Mass. 517, 131 N.E.2d 758, 53 ALR2d 908 (1956), Alfred J. Mark brought suit against Anna Kahn, his former wife, and her second husband to enjoin them from registering his children in school under the name of Kahn, or from representing that their name was Kahn. No official change of name had been made; the mother merely sought to have the children adopt the name of her second husband.

    "Where the facts on which the rights of the parties depend have not been ascertained at the trial it is within the power of the court, in its discretion and of its own motion, to recommit the cause for re-trial." DeVeer v. Pierson, 222 Mass. 167, 175. Smith v. Commonwealth, 331 Mass. 585, 593-594, and cases cited.

  7. Coughlan v. Grande Son, Inc.

    125 N.E.2d 778 (Mass. 1955)   Cited 10 times

    In these circumstances and since the case must go back for further action of the trial judge in any event, we think that the judge should make further findings on the issue of negligence, because unless negligence is established the assessment of damages by the trial judge was not justified. "Where the facts on which the rights of the parties depend have not been ascertained at the trial it is within the power of the court, in its discretion and of its own motion, to recommit the cause for re-trial." DeVeer v. Pierson, 222 Mass. 167, 175. Smith v. Commonwealth, 331 Mass. 585, 593-594, and cases cited.

  8. Smith v. Commonwealth

    331 Mass. 585 (Mass. 1954)   Cited 17 times

    As has been well said, "Where the facts on which the rights of the parties depend have not been ascertained at the trial it is within the power of the court, in its discretion and of its own motion, to recommit the cause for retrial." DeVeer v. Pierson, 222 Mass. 167, 175. Old Colony Railroad v. Wilder, 137 Mass. 536, 538-539.

  9. Bendslev v. Commissioner of Public Safety

    331 Mass. 261 (Mass. 1954)   Cited 4 times

    Rubenstein v. Lottow, 220 Mass. 156, 164. DeVeer v. Pierson, 222 Mass. 167, 175. Comstock v. Soule, 303 Mass. 153, 159.

  10. Turgeon v. Turgeon

    326 Mass. 384 (Mass. 1950)   Cited 16 times
    In Turgeon v. Turgeon, 326 Mass. 384, at page 386, it was said, "Where the facts on which the rights of the parties depend have not been ascertained at the trial it is within the power of the court, in its discretion and of its own motion, to recommit the cause for retrial."

    "Where the facts on which the rights of the parties depend have not been ascertained at the trial it is within the power of the court, in its discretion and of its own motion, to recommit the cause for retrial." De Veer v. Pierson, 222 Mass. 167, 175. Watkins v. Simplex Time Recorder Co. 316 Mass. 217, 224-225, and cases cited.