Case Name: Charles W. Dorr vs. Sumner Richardson
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1874-01
Citations: 114 Mass. 346
Docket Number: 
Parties: Charles W. Dorr vs. Sumner Richardson.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 114
Pages: 346–347

Head Matter:
Charles W. Dorr vs. Sumner Richardson.
To sustain an appeal from the Superior Court to this court, the record must show an error of law.
Petition under Gen. Sts. c. 150, § 8, to enforce a mechanic’s lien. The case came to this court by appeal. The answer denied every allegation of the petition. The record transmitted to this court contained beside the pleadings nothing except the following unextended minutes from the clerk’s docket.
“ 1872, June, Answer. 1873, June, Default. September Decree of sale. Motion to vacate decree, and allowed. Motion to amend petition, and allowed. J. S. Richardson, and J. H. Tyler allowed to appear, etc.; see order. 1874, January 10, petition dismissed. Judgment for Respondent. Petitioner Appeals. Law.”
J. P. Converse, for the petitioner.
A. B. Coffin, for the respondent.

Opinion:
By the Court.
The Superior Court had authority to decide both law and fact. Gen. Sts. c. 150, § 18. An appeal lies to this court only in matter of law apparent on the record. Gen. Sts. o. 114, § 10. The record does not show that any error in law entered into the decision below.
Judgment affirmed.