From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Oxley v. Water Supply District of Action

Appeals Court of Massachusetts
May 24, 1974
315 N.E.2d 891 (Mass. App. Ct. 1974)

Opinion

May 24, 1974.

George F. Mahoney ( Robert B. Sheiber with him) for the petitioner.

J. Owen Todd for the respondent.


This petition for assessment of damages was tried to a jury in the Superior Court pursuant to G.L.c. 79, § 14. Following a verdict for the petitioner, the respondent's motion for a new trial was allowed, subject to a remittitur, for the reason that the award of damages was excessive. Through her bill of exceptions the petitioner seeks to have us pass upon that action of the trial judge. To pursue that course in our view would be inexpedient and, in our discretion, we decline to follow it. The allowance of the motion for a new trial was interlocutory and the case will not be ripe for final judgment or appellate review until the completion of the second trial which has not yet taken place. Farris v. Saint Paul's Baptist Church, 216 Mass. 570, 571 (1914). Barnett v. Loud, 243 Mass. 510, 513 (1923). Anti v. Boston Elev. Ry. 247 Mass. 1, 3 (1923). Donovan v. Donovan, 294 Mass. 94, 96 (1936).

Exceptions dismissed.


Summaries of

Oxley v. Water Supply District of Action

Appeals Court of Massachusetts
May 24, 1974
315 N.E.2d 891 (Mass. App. Ct. 1974)
Case details for

Oxley v. Water Supply District of Action

Case Details

Full title:BELLE OXLEY vs. WATER SUPPLY DISTRICT OF ACTION

Court:Appeals Court of Massachusetts

Date published: May 24, 1974

Citations

315 N.E.2d 891 (Mass. App. Ct. 1974)
315 N.E.2d 891

Citing Cases

Haufler v. Commonwealth

The Appeals Court has held that where a new trial has been ordered in an eminent domain case, appellate…

D'Annolfo v. Stoneham Housing Authority

Before the adoption of our rules of civil procedure, the allowance of a motion for a new trial was…