[DOWNLOAD] "Carilli v. Hersey Et Al." by Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts " eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Carilli v. Hersey Et Al.
- Author : Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
- Release Date : January 18, 1939
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 63 KB
Description
LUMMUS, Justice. This case has been here twice before. The plaintiff was a lessee of one Hersey and had sued Hersey and his
agent Hettinger for specific performance of a contract not to sell the premises to another without first offering them to
the plaintiff upon equally favorable terms. In the present suit she seeks to set aside a foreclosure sale to one McCarthy
upon a mortgage given by Hersey to one Kreuzer prior to the lease to the plaintiff. When the case was first here we affirmed
a final decree dismissing the bill. Carilla v. Hersey, Mass., 12 N.E.2d 68. On the second occasion we affirmed a decree denying a motion for rehearing on the ground of newly discovered evidence, made
after our rescript to the court below, and also affirmed with costs a final decree dismissing the bill in accordance with
our earlier rescript. Carilli v. Hersey, Mass., 15 N.E.2d 220. This last decision was made on May 26, 1938. On June 13, 1938,
the plaintiff moved again for a rehearing, this time on the ground that allegations made by one Murphy in a suit against Hersey
tended to show that he and Kreuzer and McCarthy were engaged in a conspiracy to deprive the plaintiff of her contractual rights.
The Judge denied a rehearing, and on Jun 14, 1938, entered a new final decree in precise accordance with our second rescript.
The plaintiff claimed appeals from the final decree, the refusal to open the case for rehearing, and the refusal to make a
report of material facts. There was no evidence in support of the motion for a rehearing, except an affidavit that had been
already disposed of when the case was here for the second time. The appeals are frivolous. G.L.(Ter. Ed.) c. 211, §
10. Further prosecution of this case in the manner in which it has been prosecuted would be an abuse of the right to litigate.
Pepper v. Old Colony Trust Co., 268 Mass. 467, 471, 167 N.E. 656. The only remaining question is, What Disposition ought to
be made of the appeals.