The plaintiff appeals a decision of the Appellate Division dismissing a report of alleged erroneous rulings by a judge of the Municipal Court of the City of Boston. The plaintiff seeks recovery from the Hertz Corporation (Hertz) and one Jack N. Krueger for damage to his motor vehicle which, while being driven by his wife, collided with a parked truck owned by Hertz, leased to Krueger's employer, and driven by Krueger. In acting on the plaintiff's requests for rulings in the case against Krueger the trial judge found that the accident "was caused solely by negligence of Donna Cataldo," the plaintiff's wife, and "that all acts of the defendant were conditions of the circumstances of the accident and not a cause." These subsidiary findings of fact were warranted by the evidence as summarized in the report to the Appellate Division, and the rulings on the plaintiff's requests were consistent with these findings. Furthermore, these findings concerning the negligence of the plaintiff's wife properly disposed of the plaintiff's case against Hertz, and any consideration of other questions raised therein by the plaintiff is unnecessary. There was no error in the judge's rulings or in his ultimate finding in favor of both defendants. Newcomb v. Boston Protective Dept. 146 Mass. 596 , 604 (1888). Falk v. Finkelman, 268 Mass. 524 , 527-528 (1929). Wall v. King, 280 Mass. 577 , 580-581 (1932).
Order dismissing report affirmed.
This is a petition for a writ of certiorari and relief under G. L. c. 211, Section 3. It appears that the respondent Krupinski had brought a small claims action in the Municipal Court of the City of Boston against the petitioner on which there was a hearing with a finding in favor of Krupinski and the issuance of an execution. Following this finding and issuance the court denied a motion of the petitioner to revoke the order issuing the execution and for leave to appeal to the Superior Court for a jury trial. This petition was thereafter filed in the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County and the single justice entered an order sustaining a demurrer to which exception was taken. There was no error. The petitioner failed to protect his rights to remove his case to the Superior Court under the provisions of G. L. c. 218, Section 23, prior to its amendment by St. 1973, c. 748, Section 2. Since his claim for a jury trial was not seasonably filed, the judge who denied the motion to revoke the order issuing the execution and for leave to appeal acted properly within his discretion. See discussion in McLaughlin v. Municipal Court of the Roxbury Dist. of Boston, 308 Mass. 397 , 402 (1941). Having failed to remove the case to the Superior Court under the provisions of G. L. c. 218, Section 23, the petitioner had waived his right to a trial by jury. See Foster v. Morse, 132 Mass. 354 , 355 (1882); H. K. Webster Co. v. Mann, 269 Mass. 381 , 385 (1939).
[Note 1] Walter P. Krupinski.