Home ALICE A. MITCHELL vs. WALTER E. COBB & others.

220 Mass. 60

December 8, 1914 - December 31, 1914

Plymouth County

Present: RUGG, C. J., BRALEY, SHELDON, & DE COURCY, JJ.

Land Court. Practice, Civil, Appeal.

Whether under the procedure of the Land Court a "decision" of that court is something more than a finding of facts in an action of law and is a matter from which an appeal can be taken, here was mentioned as a question that was not decided, it being assumed for the purposes of the present case that there might be such an appeal which would present a question of law for determination by this court, although the present appeal presented no such question.

Where a case was brought before this court by an "appeal from the finding and decision" of the Land Court, and the paper entitled "Decision" was a simple finding of facts with a narration of some evidence, on which it could not be determined whether the conclusion of the judge was warranted or not, and, although there was a reference to certain plans, they were not made a part of the record, and no ruling of law appeared to have been made, or, if any was made, it was not brought before this court for review, no question of law being raised upon the record, it was ordered that the appeal be dismissed.


RUGG, C. J. This case is brought up by an "appeal from the finding and decision" of the Land Court. If it be assumed in favor of the appellant, but without so deciding, that a "decision" under the Land Court procedure is something more than a finding of facts in an action at law, Cressey v. Cressey, 213 Mass. 191 , and is a matter from which an appeal lies, Welsh, petitioner, 175 Mass. 68 , 70, Welsh v. Briggs, 204 Mass. 540 , 549, no question of law is raised upon this record.

The paper entitled "Decision" is a simple finding of facts with a narration of some evidence. Whether the conclusion of the judge was warranted or not cannot be determined. The evidence is not reported. There is reference to plans, but they are not a part of the record. No ruling of law appears to have been made. But, if any was made, it is not set out in such way as to be subject to review. See Hutchins v. Nickerson, 212 Mass. 118 ; Weil v. Boston Elevated Railway, 216 Mass. 545 .

Appeal dismissed.

The case was submitted on briefs.

M. O. Adams & R. O. Harris, for the respondent Cobb.

G. F. James, for the petitioner.