Case ID: mass_259/html/0036-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Elbridge R. Anderson, trustee, vs. The Second Society of Universalists in the Town of Boston. Eugene T. Redmond vs. Same.
    Suffolk.
    March 23, 1927.
    March 24, 1927.
    Present: Rugg, C.J., Pierce, Carroll, Wait, & Sanderson, JJ.
    
      Practice, Civil, Report: dismissal for failure to enter “as soon as may be.”
    A report of an action by a judge of the Superior Court, filed on December 27, 1926, was not entered in this court “as soon as may be,” under G. L. c. 231, § 135, if the order for printing the record was not given ■until February 8,1927; and a motion to dismiss the report for that reason must be allowed.
    Two actions of contract upon accounts annexed for services alleged to have been rendered and money alleged to have been expended by the plaintiffs for the benefit of the defendant; the account in the first action was for $20,885.18 and interest, covering a period from October 5, 1918, to July 31,1920; and that in the second action was for $5,261.10 with interest covering a period from August 1, 1920, through September, 1920. Writs dated August 27,1920, and October 13, 1920, respectively.
    In the Superior Court, the actions were referred to an auditor who found for the plaintiff in the first action in the sum of $600 and interest, for services only, and for the defendant in the second action. There was a trial before Sisk, J., who ordered verdicts.for the plaintiff in the first action for $600 and interest, amounting in all to $777.40; and for the defendant in the second action, and reported the actions to this court for determination.
    On the facts stated in the opinion, a motion in this court to dismiss the report was allowed.
    
      E. R. Anderson, (R. B. Owen with him,) for the plaintiffs.
    
      J. J. Higgins, for the defendant.
   By the Court.

The report in these cases was filed on the twenty-seventh day of December, 1926. The order for printing the record was not given until the eighth day of February, 1927. Thereafter there was no unreasonable delay. But we are compelled to say that the report was not entered “as soon as maybe” within the meaning of those words in G. L. c. 231, § 135. Silverstein v. Daniel Russell Boiler Works, Inc. 254 Mass. 137. Mazzuchelli v. Seretto, 254 Mass. 159. West v. Johnson, 254 Mass. 161. Crawford v. Roloson, 254 Mass. 163.

It may be added that no error is discovered in the action of the Superior Court.

Report dismissed.