THOMAS CUNNIFF vs. PAUL CLEAVES. JOHN P. CUNNIFF vs. SAME.
Practice, Civil, Appellate division: decision, appeal.
No appeal lies to this court from an order by an appellate division for a new trial of an action reported by a judge of a district court, such order not being a final decision by the appellate division.
TWO ACTIONS OF TORT, the second for personal injuries and the first, by the father of the plaintiff in the second for consequential damages. Writs in the District Court of East Norfolk dated July 6, 1932.
The actions were heard together in the District Court by Johnson, J., who found for the plaintiffs in the sums, respectively, of $135 and $l,800. The Appellate Division for the Southern District, upon reports by the trial judge, decided that there had been prejudicial error in each action in the refusal of one of the defendant's requests for rulings, and ordered a new trial of each action. Each plaintiff appealed.
The cases were submitted on briefs.
R. S. Riley & J. D. Smith, for the plaintiffs.
R. J. Dunn & G. W. Roberts, for the defendant.
BY THE COURT. Each of these cases is an appeal from the decision of an appellate division of the district courts ordering a new trial of a case reported for its decision. That was not
Page 326
a final decision of the Appellate Division from which alone an appeal lies to this court. Such new trial must be had before the case can be brought here. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 231, ยง 109. Real Property Co. Inc. v. Pitt, 230 Mass. 526. Demers v. Scaramella, 252 Mass. 430. Beacon Tool & Machinery Co. v. National Products Manuf. Co. 252 Mass. 88, 91.
In each case the entry may be
Appeal dismissed.