This bill in equity to restrain foreclosure proceedings is before us for a second time. In 346 Mass. 772 , we affirmed a final decree of the Superior Court which declared that the mortgages were in default and that the plaintiff owed the defendant $7,515 as of the date of the last payment. See J. J. Struzziery Co. Inc. v. A. V. Taurasi Co. Inc. 342 Mass. 113 , 115. Thereafter the Superior Court entered a final decree after rescript which conformed precisely with the rescript. Carilli v. Hersey, 303 Mass. 82 , 84-86. Boston v. Santosuosso, 308 Mass. 189 , 193. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 231, Section 123. the plaintiff nevertheless appealed on the ground that the decree "is not in accordance with the rescript." The appeal is palpably frivolous and intended for delay. The appeal is dismissed with double costs.
This is a petition for a writ of mandamus to enjoin the respondent school committee from ordering the continuation of Bible reading and prayer in the public schools of North Brookfield. A single justice entered findings, rulings, and an order. The respondent committee appeals from a judgment enjoining it in accordance with the prayers of the petition. The judgment is affirmed for the reasons given by the single justice in his findings and rulings.
Exceptions overruled. Decree affirmed. This case, argued with Johnson v. Fore River Motors, Inc., decided this day and relating to the same transaction, is an appeal by the buyer and his
wife from a final decree dismissing their bill seeking to avoid a conditional sales contract with Universal C.I.T. Credit Corporation on the ground that C.I.T. and the seller, also a defendant, had conspired to deceive the plaintiffs in the sale. The plaintiffs also excepted to the refusal of the judge to include in his stautory report of material facts more than the statement that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, would not warrant a finding for either. The entire evidence is reported. Neither plaintiff testified. There was no error. The entire record shows no evidence to support a finding that either defendant made to either plaintiff a false representation of a material fact to induce the purchase. Although the judge might well have made a specific finding to this effect in aid of this court, no harm has been done to the plaintiffs since all the evidence is before us. Fenton v. Malfas, 286 Mass. 339 , 341. A civil action for conspiracy to deceive falls with the failure to prove the deceit. Weiner v. Lowenstein, 314 Mass. 642 , 646-647. the rulings on evidence show no error.