Source: http://masscases.com/cases/app/1/1massappct112.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 05:09:25+00:00

Document:
EVELYN K. ANGOFF, executrix, vs. SAMUEL S. ANGOFF.
BILL IN EQUITY filed in the Superior Court on February 6, 1969.
The suit was reported by Kalus, J., after hearing on a master's report.
Irvin M. Davis for the defendant.
Edmund M. Hurley & Charlotte Anne Perretta for the plaintiff.
Section 10, inserted by St. 1972, c. 740, Section 1) and was submitted on briefs without oral argument.
finding on a point which the defendant considered material.
1. The powers to report a question or a case for appellate review and to determine what issues should be reported are ones which rest "in the sound judicial discretion of the trial judge" (Laverty v. Associated Gas & Elec. Secur. Co. Inc. 300 Mass. 79, 81) "where justice requires such review" (Rines v. Superior Court, 330 Mass. 368, 373). The exercise of such discretion is reviewable. John Hetherington & Sons, Ltd. v. William Firth Co. 212 Mass. 257, 259. Commonwealth v. Henry's Drywall, Inc. 362 Mass. 552, 554-557. Compare Strong v. Carver Cotton Gin Co. 202 Mass. 209, 212. "Interlocutory matters should be reported only where it appears that they present serious questions likely to be material in the ultimate decision, and that subsequent proceedings in the trial court will be substantially facilitated by so doing." John Gilbert Jr. Co. v. C. M. Fauci Co. 309 Mass. 271, 273. See also Vincent v. Plecker, 319 Mass. 560, 563, fn. 1. The statutes permitting such reports (see fn. 1, this opinion [first four sentences]) were not intended "to relieve the [trial court] of the responsibility of deciding upon all questions incident to the trial of issues in that court" (Noble v. Boston, 111 Mass. 485, 486) or to permit an "[a]bandonment of the judicial function by the trial court" (Atlantic Maritime Co. v. Gloucester, 228 Mass. 519, 521). See also Granger v. Lovely, 302 Mass. 504, 507. "If [the trial court's] discretion should be too generously exercised, and if moot, speculative or subsidiary questions are reported, they [should] not be considered." John Hetherington & Sons, Ltd. v. William Firth Co. 212 Mass. 257, 259.
now it would then be improper for us to decide now what form of final decree or other action should thereafter be entered or taken in the Superior Court (see Lane v. J. W. Lavery & Son, Inc. 294 Mass. 288, 295-296; Abbott v. Bean, 295 Mass. 268, 280-281), with the result that the case would have to be remanded to that court for further consideration and action in any event. [Note 5] Many, if not most, of these questions might become wholly unimportant by the time this case might reach us again following the entry of some form of final decree. See Noble v. Boston, 111 Mass. 485, 486; Terry v. Brightman, 129 Mass. 535, 538. In these circumstances we are of opinion that for us to entertain and answer the questions "would tend to transform this court into an advisory board for the direction of the business of the court below." See Noble v. Boston, 111 Mass. 485, 487; Vautier, petr. 340 Mass. 341, 344. We believe that as matters of discretion and sound judicial administration we should postpone decision of the issues reported until such time as appellate review may be sought after final decree. See Commonwealth v. Benjamin, 358 Mass. 672, 673, fn. 1, Commonwealth v. Henry's Drywall, Inc. 362 Mass. 552, 556-557. Accordingly, we discharge the report.
significance unless we were mistakenly to accept as facts matters which were not found to be such by the master and which appear only in the form of testimony which the master was not obliged to believe or in the form of offers of proof made following exclusions of testimony. In view of the disposition we make of the case under point 1 of this opinion we find it unnecessary to decide whether the report should be dismissed for this defendant's failure to file an acceptable brief. See Carangias v. Market Men's Relief Assoc. 293 Mass. 284, 285; Soscia v. Soscia, 310 Mass. 418.
3. Because this case involves a report, as opposed to an appeal or a bill of exceptions, we can take no action under G. L. c. 211A, Section 15.
The report is discharged and the case remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings (including the entry of a final decree) not inconsistent with this opinion. The plaintiff is to have single costs under G. L. c. 261, Section 25, within the limitations imposed by Rule 1:14 of the Appeals Court.
[Note 1] "If, upon making an interlocutory decree or order, the justice is of opinion that it so affects the merits of the controversy that the matter ought, before further proceedings, to be determined by the full court, he may report the question for that purpose, and stay all further proceedings except those necessary to preserve the rights of the parties" (emphasis supplied). See now G. L. c. 214, Section 30A, as appearing in St. 1972, c. 740, Section 4. Other powers of report by the Superior Court are now found in the following: G. L. c. 214, Section 31A, as appearing in St. 1972, c. 740, Section 6; G. L. c. 231, Section 111, as amended by St. 1971, c. 843, Section 12; G. L. c. 278, Section 30; and G. L. c. 278, Section 30A, as inserted by St. 1954, c. 528. See also G. L. c. 185, Section 15 (Land Court); G. L. c. 215, Section 13 (Probate Courts). We do not consider the provisions of G. L. c. 211, Section 6, or those of G. L. c. 214, Sections 30 or 31 (as appearing in St. 1972, c. 740, Sections 3 and 5, respectively).
[Note 2] The record before us also contains papers relative to a request by the defendant (which the master said had been filed too late) for summaries of evidence in support of fifty-two findings, lengthy extracts from the transcript of the evidence before (but not reported by) the master, and papers relative to appeals by the defendant from interlocutory orders denying his motions: to recommit the report to the master; to vacate the master's report and for the court to hear the evidence or, in the alternative, to refer the case to a different master; to strike (asserted) conclusions of law from the report; for a hearing by the court on certain issues; to designate as parts of the record (see S. J. C. Rule 1:02 and  351 Mass. 732 , 733) all or parts of some 486 pages of the transcript of evidence before (but not reported by) the master; to include the entire transcript in the record; and to certify (see S. J. C. Rule 1:06 351 Mass. 735 ) some 142 documents or photographs received in evidence or marked for identification before the master (but not made parts of or otherwise incorporated in his report). We ignore the motions and the court's actions thereon as not properly within the scope of the questions reported. Foote v. Cotting, 195 Mass. 55, 64. Smith v. Lincoln, 198 Mass. 388, 392. Abbott v. Bean, 295 Mass. 268, 281. Commonwealth v. England, 350 Mass. 83, 88.
[Note 3] The defendant tells us in his brief that only thirty-five objections are before us, a conclusion which can be reached only if we ignore the fifty-two objections directed to the alleged failure of the evidence to support various of the master's findings (see fn. 2, this opinion). We need not now determine whether such discrepancy is to be construed as a belated acknowledgement that the defendant's request for summaries of evidence was filed too late (fn. 2), as a waiver of the fifty-two objections (Rule 1:13 of the Appeals Court) or as an attempt unilaterally to withdraw from our consideration some of the issues presented to us by the report (see Sun Oil Co. v. Director of the Division on the Necessaries of Life, 340 Mass. 235, 237).
[Note 4] The figure of 183 is derived from something in the record entitled "Index to Appendix 2." The defendant's brief puts the figure at only 171. See fn.3, second sentence.
[Note 5] We need not consider the situation which might have been presented if the judge had chosen to act under G. L. c. 214, Section 31, as then in effect (see now G. L. c. 214, Section 31A, as appearing in St. 1972, c. 740, Section 6). See Remington Arms Co. Inc. v. Lechmere Tire & Sales Co. 339 Mass. 131, 132.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.