Mass. Building Finish Co., Inc. v. Brenner

12 Citing cases

  1. P.A. Dolan Co. v. P.S. Thorsen Co. of Massachusetts

    324 Mass. 376 (Mass. 1949)   Cited 32 times

    It is too late to raise here for the first time the question whether the evidence conformed to the declaration. Mass. Building Finish Co. Inc. v. Brenner, 288 Mass. 481, 484. MacDonald v. Adamian, 294 Mass. 187, 190.

  2. Barton v. Cambridge

    318 Mass. 420 (Mass. 1945)   Cited 18 times

    The implication from the record is that the "request" for a report as to the allowance of the motions for judgment was made well within the five days allowed. Such a "request" for a report is enough to save a question of law, except a question of the admission or exclusion of evidence, as to which there must also be a "claim" for a report made known at the time of the ruling. Mass. Building Finish Co. Inc. v. Brenner, 288 Mass. 481, 484. A "request" for a report is comparable to the taking of an exception in other courts.

  3. Cueroni v. Coburnville Garage, Inc.

    315 Mass. 135 (Mass. 1943)   Cited 14 times

    The contention of the defendant that he is entitled to deductions in addition to those allowed by the judge on account of the omission of the plaintiff to furnish certain material and the substitution of old for new material, even if the provisions of the contract in these respects were waived by the defendant, is not open in the absence of a request for a ruling that the defendant should be credited on account of such deductions. Mass. Building Finish Co. Inc. v. Brenner, 288 Mass. 481. Tighe v. Skillings, 297 Mass. 504, 506. There was no error in finding for the plaintiff on the third count.

  4. Moherman v. Nickels

    45 N.E.2d 405 (Ohio 1942)   Cited 26 times

    " See, also, McLaughlin v. West End Street Ry. Co., 186 Mass. 150, 71 N.E. 317; Heckman's Admr., v. L. N. Rd. Co.; 85 Ky. 631, 4 S.W. 342; McGrath, Admx., v. West End Orchard Land Co., 43 Idaho 255, 251 P. 623; Mass. Bldg. Finish Co., Inc., v. Brenner, 288 Mass. 481, 193 N.E. 355; Sidis v. Rosaia, 170 Wn. 587, 17 P.2d 37. The cases above reviewed and cited sustain the contention of the plaintiff in this case.

  5. Santosuosso v. Dellarusso

    300 Mass. 247 (Mass. 1938)   Cited 20 times

    Ed.) c. 231, § 109. Loanes v. Gast, 216 Mass. 197, 199. Mass. Building Finish Co. Inc. v. Brenner, 288 Mass. 481, 484. MacDonald v. Adamian, 294 Mass. 187, 190. Lariviere v. Boucher, 297 Mass. 27, 30. Dolham v. Peterson, 297 Mass. 479, 481.

  6. Tighe v. Skillings

    297 Mass. 504 (Mass. 1937)   Cited 26 times

    It is plain that the trial judge did not undertake to report that question. Mass. Building Finish Co. Inc. v. Brenner, 288 Mass. 481, 484. Walsh v. Adams, 245 Mass. 1, 9. Stangy v. Boston Elevated Railway, 220 Mass. 414, 416.

  7. Henry L. Sawyer Co. v. Boyajian

    296 Mass. 215 (Mass. 1936)   Cited 13 times

    "The appeal from the order of the Appellate Division brings before us for revision only the rulings of law made by the trial judge and reported by him to the Appellate Division, and the action of the Appellate Division thereon." Massachusetts Building Finish Co. Inc. v. Brenner, 288 Mass. 481, 484. The first of the two questions upon which an appeal was taken relates to the defendant's motion for a nonsuit for failure to answer interrogatories.

  8. Hammond v. Boston Terminal Co.

    295 Mass. 566 (Mass. 1936)   Cited 8 times

    An appeal from a decision of the Appellate Division brings to this court for consideration "only the rulings of law made by the trial judge and reported by him to the Appellate Division, and the action of the Appellate Division" with reference to those rulings. Mass. Building Finish Co. Inc. v. Brenner, 288 Mass. 481, 484. From the history of the course of this action already narrated, it seems plain that the interrogatories and answers thereto were not offered in evidence, because the defendant was defaulted and damages were assessed by agreement. Therefore, the defendant suffered no harm from any alleged errors concerning the interrogatories.

  9. Burns Bros. v. Block

    292 Mass. 347 (Mass. 1935)   Cited 1 times

    The bond in action manifestly was not so limited. Mass.Building Finish Co. Inc. v. Brenner, 288 Mass. 481, 486-487. De Santis v. Massachusetts Bonding Ins. Co. 289 Mass. 315, 320.

  10. Gordon v. Houston Air Craft Sales

    218 So. 2d 206 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1969)

    Since the forthcoming bond by its nature is one dealing with satisfaction of a judgment against defendant, such judgment is necessary to impose liability on the surety. See Massachusetts Building Finish Co. v. Brenner, 288 Mass. 481, 193 N.E. 355. In the absence of a valid judgment against the defendant McAlpin (principal on the bond), or against a properly joined representative or successor in interest after his death during the pendency of the cause, the judgment against the surety was not authorized.