From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Telch v. Hamburger

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Suffolk
Mar 12, 1927
156 N.E. 658 (Mass. 1927)

Opinion

March 11, 1927.

March 12, 1927.

Present: RUGG, C.J., BRALEY, PIERCE, CARROLL, WAIT, JJ.

Practice, Civil, Specifications, Nonsuit. Exceptions.

The disposition of a motion that a plaintiff in an action of contract be nonsuited for failure to comply with an order of court to file specifications within a specified time rests in sound judicial discretion, and, when no abuse of discretion is shown, an exception to the allowance of such a motion must be overruled.

CONTRACT. Writ dated April 27, 1920.

Proceedings in the Superior Court upon motions for specifications and to nonsuit are described in the opinion. The plaintiff alleged an exception to an order by Morton, J., that he become nonsuit.

E.F. Shamon, for the plaintiff.

Lee M. Friedman, for the defendants, submitted a brief.


After this case was entered, the defendants filed a motion for specifications on which, on May 1, 1923, it was ordered that certain specifications be filed within two weeks. Time for compliance with this order was extended to and including August 20, 1923. There was no compliance with this order. On April 8, 1926, motion was made by the plaintiff for leave to file specifications. At the hearing upon this motion counsel for defendants moved that the plaintiff be nonsuited for failure to comply with the order of 1923, and stated that the motion would have been filed earlier had he not supposed until 1926 that the case had been dismissed in accordance with notice issued by the clerk of the court in June, 1924. It was agreed that present counsel for the plaintiff, who had entered his appearance in February, 1926, had been diligent in his efforts to proceed with the case. The judge denied the motion for leave to file specifications, and granted the motion to nonsuit the plaintiff. No evidence is reported.

The disposition of these motions rested in sound judicial discretion. There is nothing to indicate that there was any abuse of discretion. The case is governed by Nickerson v. Glines, 220 Mass. 333. Common Law Rule 6 of the Superior Court (1915). See Davis v. Boston Elevated Railway, 235 Mass. 482, 496, 497.

Exceptions overruled.


Summaries of

Telch v. Hamburger

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Suffolk
Mar 12, 1927
156 N.E. 658 (Mass. 1927)
Case details for

Telch v. Hamburger

Case Details

Full title:JOSE J. TELCH vs. ISAAC HAMBURGER another

Court:Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Suffolk

Date published: Mar 12, 1927

Citations

156 N.E. 658 (Mass. 1927)
156 N.E. 658

Citing Cases

Perry v. Perkins

It is universally recognized that a court has the inherent power and authority, in the absence of statute or…

Friedman v. Globe Newspaper Company

While the sanction of striking the offending material was a measure available to the judge, the sterner…