Norcross v. Mahan

11 Citing cases

  1. Hosken, Inc. v. Hingham Management Corp.

    105 N.E.2d 232 (Mass. 1952)   Cited 5 times

    We are not convinced that any of them can be said to be plainly wrong. Nothing would be gained by setting forth an analysis of the evidence with respect to each particular finding. It was said in Norcross v. Mahan, 283 Mass. 403, 404, that "In a case like this, where marshalling the evidence would elucidate no principle of law and would interest no one but the parties, the court refrains from discussion." See, for instance, Palmer Electric Manuf. Co. v. Underwriters' Laboratories, Inc. 284 Mass. 550, 554-555; Ecklund v. Ecklund, 288 Mass. 517, 518; Bloom, South Gurney, Inc. v. Mitchell, 289 Mass. 376, 379; Trade Mutual Liability Ins. Co. v. Peters, 291 Mass. 79, 84; O'Reilly v. O'Reilly, 293 Mass. 332, 334; Murphy v. Donovan, 295 Mass. 311, 315.

  2. Old Colony Trust Co. v. Yonge

    302 Mass. 49 (Mass. 1938)   Cited 7 times

    Ed.) c. 215, §§ 9-12, are considered in this court in the same manner as are appeals in equity. Norcross v. Mahan, 283 Mass. 403. Greeley v. O'Connor, 294 Mass. 527. Murphy v. Donovan, 295 Mass. 311. It is our duty to examine the evidence and to decide the case upon our own judgment but the findings made by the judge upon oral testimony are not to be set aside unless they are plainly wrong.

  3. Stoneham Five Cents Savings Bank v. Johnson

    295 Mass. 390 (Mass. 1936)   Cited 44 times
    Stating that [i]n Massachusetts, statutes of limitation apply of their own force to suits in equity"

    Graustein v. Dolan, 282 Mass. 579, 583, 584. Norcross v. Mahan, 283 Mass. 403, 404. Albert Richards Co. Inc. v. Mayfair, Inc. 287 Mass. 280, 284.

  4. Murphy v. Donovan

    295 Mass. 311 (Mass. 1936)   Cited 12 times

    Tuells v. Flint, 283 Mass. 106, 108, 109. Norcross v. Mahan, 283 Mass. 403. Rodrigues v. Rodrigues, 286 Mass. 77, 80, 81. The principles of law as to what constitutes undue influence are thoroughly settled.

  5. Estey v. Gardner

    197 N.E. 72 (Mass. 1935)   Cited 11 times

    Such requests can be effective only where the case comes to this court by a bill of exceptions under the common law practice. In equity cases coming up by appeal requests for rulings have no standing as such. Graustein v. Dolan, 282 Mass. 579. Norcross v. Mahan, 283 Mass. 403. Albert Richards Co. Inc. v. Mayfair, Inc. 287 Mass. 280. A slight error appears in the amount of the decree entered against the defendant William Gardner. The trial judge charged him in the sum of $1,645 for use and occupation, and credited him with $507,33 for taxes paid and $965.60 for improvements, the total credit being $1,472.93. This sum deducted from $1,645 for use and occupation leaves $172.07 instead of $172.37 for which sum as damages the decree was erroneously entered.

  6. Trade Mutual Liability Ins. Co. v. Peters

    291 Mass. 79 (Mass. 1935)   Cited 69 times

    An appeal in equity opens all questions of fact, discretion and law presented by the record. Romanausky v. Skutulas, 258 Mass. 190. Norcross v. Mahan, 283 Mass. 403, 404. Hannah v. Frawley, 285 Mass. 28, 31. Old Colony Trust Co. v. Third Universalist Society of Cambridge, 285 Mass. 146, 151.

  7. Ecklund v. Ecklund

    193 N.E. 43 (Mass. 1934)   Cited 22 times

    No point of law is raised on it. The question determined was purely one of fact, depending upon the credibility of witnesses and the weighing of evidence. The decision was not plainly wrong but appears to have been right. Cases of this kind depend upon their special circumstances, can be of no value as precedents and the evidence need not be stated or discussed. Reed v. Reed, 114 Mass. 372. Lincoln v. Eaton, 132 Mass. 63, 68. Dickinson v. Todd, 172 Mass. 183. Norcross v. Mahan, 283 Mass. 403. Decree affirmed.

  8. Limoges v. Limoges

    287 Mass. 260 (Mass. 1934)   Cited 6 times

    We cannot reverse the judge on a question of fact depending on oral testimony unless the evidence reported shows that he was plainly wrong. Norcross v. Mahan, 283 Mass. 403. Compare Hannah v. Frawley, 285 Mass. 28. Cohabitation as husband and wife was evidence of a lawful marriage between the petitioner and Walters, to say nothing of the petitioner's testimony as to a marriage. G.L. (Ter.

  9. Palmer Elec. Mfg. Co. v. Underwriters' Lab

    188 N.E. 257 (Mass. 1933)   Cited 6 times

    This access, in our opinion, did not prevent such a switch from being "operable without opening cases" within the meaning of classifications AA, A and B. Neither do we perceive error in the denial by the trial judge of liability for permitting too little space between live parts and the enclosing case or cover, in the competing switches, in alleged violation of other parts of the defendant's requirements for all enclosed switches. As this involves no principle of law, but relates merely to the finding of facts from evidence, we see no need for demonstration or discussion. Norcross v. Mahan, 283 Mass. 403. A defect was found in these competing switches, with respect to the exposure of live parts to contact by persons replacing or inspecting fuses.

  10. Davis v. Parker

    363 N.E.2d 1359 (Mass. App. Ct. 1977)   Cited 1 times

    Even if we were to assume that she was entitled to the rulings requested (see Worcester Bank Trust Co. v. Ellis, 292 Mass. 88, 94-95 [1935]), there is no showing on this record that she excepted to the judge's refusal. Norcross v. Mahan, 283 Mass. 403, 404 (1933). See Graustein v. Dolan, 282 Mass. 579, 583-584 (1933).