HENRY ROSE vs. JOHN HARRISON.
Practice, Civil, Appeal.
A record, which discloses only an appeal from an order denying, after a hearing, a petition to vacate a judgment, is barren of any suggestion of a question of law, and the appeal is frivolous.
PETITION , filed in the Municipal Court of the City of Boston on October 10, 1916, to vacate a judgment of that court.
The record contained a copy of the petition and of the jurat thereon, and a copy of an order of notice upon the petition issued by the Municipal Court of the City of Boston on October 13, 1916. The rest of the record was as follows:
"Petition filed in Municipal Court Oct. 10, 1916.
"Entered in Superior Court Dec. 7, 1916.
"Petition denied after hearing Feb. 9, 1917.
"Plaintiff's Appeal.
"And now the plaintiff appeals from the order or decree of this honorable court, denying his petition herein, to the Supreme Judicial Court. By his Attorney, F. Galloupe Woodbury.
"Filed Feb. 10, 1917."
Page 262
F. G. Woodbury, for the petitioner, appeared in court, but filed no brief.
G. J. Weller, for the respondent, submitted a brief.
BY THE COURT. This record consists of a "petition to vacate judgment," the order of notice thereon, the date of filing in the Municipal Court, the date of entry in the Superior Court, a statement that the petition was "denied after hearing," and the plaintiff's appeal. The record is barren of any suggestion of a question of law. Therefore there is nothing to be considered. Cobb v. Hale, 172 Mass. 387.
The appeal is frivolous. The denial of the petition is affirmed with double costs under the statute.
So ordered.