Case ID: ri_30/html/0458-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Blodgett, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Edward Russell Mahoney vs. Helen M. Mahoney.
    MAY 19, 1910.
    PRESENT: Dubois, C. J., Blodgett, Johnson, Parkhurst, and Sweetland, JJ.
    
      Divorce. Exceptions to Decision Denying Petition.
    
    A petition for divorce was heard and denied, and petitioner moved to reinstate case and for further hearing, which was denied, and petitioner excepted:—
    
      
      Held, that the decision denying the petition was the decision to which exceptions should have been taken to bring the cause before the Supreme Court, under Gen. Laws, 1909, cap. 298, § 10.
    
      Held, further, that no exception could be taken to the decision denying the motion to re-instate, since no right was determined by its granting or • refusal.
    Divorce.
    Exceptions of petitioner dismissed.
    
      Thomas F. Farrell, for petitioner.
    
      Pouliot & Archamhault, for respondent.
   Blodgett, J.

The Superior Court record upon this petition for divorce shows the following entries: 1910 Jany 28 Heard & denied and dismissed — Feby 1. Submitted on briefs on petitioner’s motion to reinstate case and for further hearing. Feby 9 Rescript on file — motion denied. Feby 14. Petr, files bill of exceptions.”

For reasons similar to those set forth' in the recent case of Thrift v. Thrift, ante, p. 456, the decision denying and dismissing the petition was the decision to which exceptions should have been taken in order to bring the cause to this court for review under the provisions of section 10 of chapter 298, Gen. Laws of 1909.

The motion to reinstate, if denied, leaves the rights of the parties as theretofore determined by the decision denying and dismissing the petition, and if it had been granted would then have left the case to be again heard by the court upon its merits as if never heard, and would in no way have determined the rights of the parties. In either event, it is clear that no exception can be taken thereto, since no right is determined by its granting or by its refusal.

No exceptions to the decision denying’and dismissing the petition on January 28, 1910, were filed within the seven days prescribed by the statute, and it follows that the order must be

Exceptions dismissed, and papers ordered remitted to the ' Superior Court.