Home HARRY A. CHEHAMES vs. LAFAYETTE SQUARE RESTAURANT, INC.

306 Mass. 618

April 5, 1940

Order for judgment affirmed. The case comes here on appeal from an order for judgment for the defendant upon the report of an auditor whose findings of fact were to be final, which order was "an order for judgment upon a case stated." G.L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 231, Section 96. The action is for money paid for the benefit of the defendant at its request. The auditor found that there was no contract by the defendant to repay the money, but that the money was to be applied toward the purchase price of certain stock. Upon the report of the auditor his findings seem to us to be right. There was no error in the order of judgment for the defendant.

Home ANTONE MEDEIROS & another vs. INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS OF NEW BEDFORD.

306 Mass. 618

May 28, 1940

Exceptions overruled. Petition dismissed. The store, the smoke house and the connecting passageway could be found to constitute a single building which conformed to the zoning ordinance. No error appears.

Home ALICE P. CAMERON vs. MARGARET CAMERON (estate of William J. Cameron).

306 Mass. 618

May 28, 1940

Decree affirmed. The record is silent as to evidence or findings at the hearing. It furnishes no basis for any contention that there was error.

Home MAMIE KARGER vs. EVA M. CHASE & others.

306 Mass. 618

June 26, 1940

Decree affirmed with costs. The agreement directly between husband and wife, made on November 30, 1938, was ineffectual. Mr. Buzzell as trustee for the wife remained entitled to the share of the estate of Mulleavey assigned to him by the separation agreement of May 2, 1938. The beneficial interest in that share passed to the wife as her unrestricted property, and from her to the plaintiff. There was nothing in the nature of a spendthrift trust. There was ample consideration for the note held by the plaintiff.

Home CHESTER LEFLEUR vs. LIBERTY LAUNDRY CO. INC.

306 Mass. 618

June 27, 1940

Exceptions overruled. The plaintiff was hurt when the wheel of a truck in which he was riding fell into a pit around a cellar window. The grating over the pit was loose. The truck was operated by a fellow servant in the employ of the uninsured defendant. The auditor found the operator negligent. That finding warranted the verdict for the plaintiff. That finding did not purport to be a mere conclusion from subsidiary facts found. But

Page 619

subsidiary facts and other evidence outside the report tended to support the general finding of negligence.