345 Mass. 768

January 30, 1963

Exceptions overruled. Under G. L. c. 117, Section 14, Worcester seeks to recover $232.30 from Natick for hospital care of Eva Coutsonikas in 1958. The evidence consists of the testimony of one witness, a statement of agreed facts, and seven documentary exhibits. The judge found for Natick and denied four requests for rulings by Worcester. He made no special findings. It is undisputed that Eva, born in Natick in 1931, moved with her parents to Worcester in 1948 and has never since returned to Natick. Worcester contends, nevertheless, that Eva has not lost her Natick settlement. This contention has no validity if at the time of her marriage to James Z. Coutsonikas in November, 1953, the latter had a Worcester settlement. G. L. c. 116, Section 1, Second. The requested rulings had in common the implied assumption that James did not then have a Worcester settlement. The general finding and the denial of the requests indicate that on this issue of fact the judge found to the contrary. Orcutt v. Signouin, 302 Mass. 373, 375, 376. Richards v. Gilbert, 336 Mass. 617, 618. The documentary evidence and the agreed facts, which constitute almost the entire record, satisfy us that the finding of a Worcester settlement by James at the time of the marriage was warranted either under G. L. c. 116, Section 1, Fifth (D), or, since his separation from the service in November, 1945, under G. L. c. 116, Section 1, First. The record sufficiently shows that the ground of the denial of the requests was the inapplicability of the statutes cited therein to the factual situation. Povey v. Colonial Beacon Oil Co. 294 Mass. 86, 93. Georgeopoulos v. Georgeopoulos, 303 Mass. 231, 234.


345 Mass. 768

February 1, 1963

Decree dismissing petition for revocation affirmed with costs. The judge correctly dismissed McFatridge's petition to revoke on the ground of want of jurisdiction the divorce granted to his wife in this Commonwealth where they had been married in 1952. In the original proceeding

Page 769

McFatridge had raised the issue of want of jurisdiction in his answer, but made no attempt to contradict or rebut the testimony of his wife (the only witness on the issue) which, if believed, was sufficient to establish the jurisdictional requirements. He was present with counsel at the trial. They both openly engaged in colloquies with the judge relative to provisions in the decree for visits by and to the child. McFatridge did not request a report of material facts nor did he appeal from the decree. In consequence the decree implicitly imports the finding of all facts essential to support it. Gilman v. Gilman, 327 Mass. 143, 145. The general rule as to the finality of the disposition of a case upon the entry of a final decree applies. Doris v. State Realty Co. of Boston, Inc. 333 Mass. 425, 426, and cases cited. The recognized exceptions to the rule, noted in Sampson v. Sampson, 223 Mass. 451, 462, Sullivan v. Sullivan, 266 Mass. 228, 229, McLaughlin v. Feerick, 276 Mass. 180, 182-183, and White v. White, 337 Mass. 114, 116, and cases cited, do not pertain. McFatridge has had his day in court and, in the circumstances disclosed, is not entitled to another. Stephens v. Lampron, 308 Mass. 50, 52-53.