From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Foote v. Process Equipment Co.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Nov 30, 1967
231 N.E.2d 574 (Mass. 1967)

Opinion

November 30, 1967.

Willis A. Downs for the defendant.

Seymour Bluhm for the plaintiff. Page 756


The defendant appeals from an order of the Appellate Division dismissing a report from the District Court judge who refused to allow a motion for postponement filed under Rule 15 of the Rules of the District Courts (1965). The opinion of the Appellate Division recites that: "[t]he decision as to whether or not a case shall be tried when reached or continued for hearing at a later time rests within sound judicial discretion. Morgan v. Steele 242 Mass. 217 and cases cited." This is obviously a correct statement of the law. The Appellate Division opinion also discusses the aforementioned Rule 15. We see no need for any further discussion. There was no error.

Order dismissing report affirmed.


Summaries of

Foote v. Process Equipment Co.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Nov 30, 1967
231 N.E.2d 574 (Mass. 1967)
Case details for

Foote v. Process Equipment Co.

Case Details

Full title:HAROLD B. FOOTE vs. PROCESS EQUIPMENT CO., INC

Court:Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

Date published: Nov 30, 1967

Citations

231 N.E.2d 574 (Mass. 1967)
353 Mass. 755

Citing Cases

Thaden v. Villate

We note, however, that a decision as to whether or not a motion for continuance should be granted rests…

Kalus v. Thompson Club Unit Owners' Trust

Generally, a continuance may be granted whenever justice so requires it, Noble v. Mead-Morrison Mfgr. Co.,…