Gallant v. Federal Mut. Ins. Co., 354 Mass. 146, 149 (1968). Forbes v. Gordon Gerber, Inc., 298 Mass. 91, 94-95 (1937). Menici v. Orton Crane Shovel Co., 285 Mass. 499, 500-501 (1934).

Moreover, the requests for rulings are the exclusive vehicle of preserving a party's right to a review of the Municipal/District court judgment, and absent any written or taped record or transcript of proceedings in the Boston Municipal Court Department, the importance of having requests framed in a way that preserves the rights of appeal is underscored. In any event, the request for ruling method is not designed as a trap for the unwary, and a ruling on a request "on all the evidence" cannot be denied because the party seeking it has not exhausted every possible way of expressing the request with specificity. For cases interpreting and applying the rule earlier in its history see Forbes v. Gordon Gerber, Inc., 298 Mass. 91, 95 (1937). See Rule 27 of the Municipal Court of the City of Boston (1932).

The cases, consolidated for trial, were heard before a judge of the Superior Court, sitting without a jury. Each insurance company "filed a motion for a directed finding," all of which were denied. See Menici v. Orton Crane Shovel Co. 285 Mass. 499, 500-501; Forbes v. Gordon Gerber, Inc. 298 Mass. 91, 94-96; Hooper v. Kennedy, 320 Mass. 576; Wire Textile Mach. Inc. v. Robinson, 332 Mass. 417, 418. Each company also filed requests for rulings, two of which (nos. 1 and 4) were denied. The trial judge found for the plaintiffs in each case. The cases are before us on each insurance company's exceptions to the denial of " a directed finding" (which we treat as, in effect, denial of a request for a ruling that a finding for the plaintiff was not warranted by the evidence), and of the requested rulings.

" Each request cited Commonwealth v. Campbell, 7 Allen, 541. The defendant argues in effect that a request for a ruling "on all the evidence" is a request for a ruling of law as to whether there was sufficient evidence to warrant a finding of guilty. The defendant cites the cases of Forbes v. Gordon Gerber, Inc. 298 Mass. 91, and Commonwealth v. Carter, 306 Mass. 141, which establish the rule that in cases tried in the Superior Court, without a jury, the question whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a finding against a party is to be raised by a request for a ruling that the evidence would not warrant such a finding. See Commonwealth v. Goldberg, 316 Mass. 563, 564; Commonwealth v. Slome, 321 Mass. 713, 714.

The refusal of this request is equivalent to a ruling that the evidence warranted a finding for the plaintiff. Commonwealth v. Hull, 296 Mass. 327, 329. Forbes v. Gordon Gerber, Inc. 298 Mass. 91, 95. There has, however, been no compliance with Rule 27 of the District Courts (1940), which requires the grounds of such a request to be specified. The Appellate Division did not review the ruling, and hence the question is not before us. Holton v. American Pastry Products Corp. 274 Mass. 268, 270-271.

Reliable Finance Corp. v. Baldrate, 291 Mass. 150, 152. The question whether the evidence warranted any finding at all for the plaintiff is not before us. Forbes v. Gordon Gerber, Inc. 298 Mass. 91, 94-95, and cases cited. Matter of Loeb, 315 Mass. 191, 194, and cases cited.

Holton v. American Pastry Products Corp. 274 Mass. 268. Breen v. Burns, 280 Mass. 222, 228. Forbes v. Gordon Gerber, Inc. 298 Mass. 91, 94, 95. But where the basis for the general finding or decision is not in dispute, an exception to, or a request for a report from, the general finding or decision, suffices to raise the question of law whether it was warranted. Leshefsky v. American Employers' Ins. Co. 293 Mass. 164, 166, 167.

Since the case was tried without jury, the point was properly raised by a request for a ruling. Forbes v. Gordon Gerber, Inc. 298 Mass. 91, 94, 95. Commonwealth v. Carter, 306 Mass. 141, 143. Matter of Loeb, 315 Mass. 191, 194. Exceptions sustained.Judgment for the defendant.

Ed.) c. 231, § 108, because there is no appeal from the decision of the judge to the Appellate Division. See Schon v. Odd Fellows Building Association, 255 Mass. 465; Holton v. American Pastry Products Corp. 274 Mass. 268; Breen v. Burns, 280 Mass. 222, 228; Forbes v. Gordon Gerber, Inc. 298 Mass. 91, 94, 95; Ahern v. Towle, 310 Mass. 695, 701; Langdoc v. Gevaert Co. of America, Inc. 315 Mass. 8. But since the cases were presented on a case stated, further requests for rulings had no utility or standing, and need not be considered, for the only question before the Appellate Division or before us is whether the decision was right on the facts stated and proper inferences therefrom.

Apart from the exceptional rule of the Leshefsky case, an exception to a finding does not present the question whether it was warranted by the evidence. Stowell v. H.P. Hood Sons, Inc. 288 Mass. 555. Forbes v. Gordon Gerber, Inc. 298 Mass. 91, 94, 95. Ross v. Colonial Provision Co. Inc. 299 Mass. 39, 41. Baker v. Davis, 299 Mass. 345, 348, 349. Looby v. Looby, 303 Mass. 391, 392.