Summary
In Matthews v. Kimball, supra, the court says: "The only limitation as to the character of the improvement is that it must be a local improvement and of a public nature; that is, local to the city and the inhabitants thereof (italics ours), and public to the extent that it shall be free to the public under such proper regulations as may be adopted for its control, management and preservation by the city council."
Summary of this case from Federal Construction Co. v. EnsignOpinion
16-P-365
01-17-2017
Duncan P. KIMBALL v. Noreen L. MATTHEWS& another.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
On appeal from a judgment entered after a jury trial resulting in a plaintiff's verdict in this action on a promissory note, the defendants argue error in the denial of their motion to dismiss. However, the motion to dismiss is not before us; the defendants did not include it in their notice of appeal. See Mass. R.A.P. 3(c), as appearing in 430 Mass. 1602 (1999); G.E.B. v. S.R.W. , 422 Mass. 158, 173 n.13 (1996) ; Robinson v. Boston , 71 Mass. App. Ct. 765, 771 (2008). Instead, the notice of appeal identifies only the judgment entered on November 20, 2015. Accordingly, there is nothing before us to review.
The motion to dismiss was denied on September 25, 2013.
--------
Although the defendants' arguments explicitly state that they pertain to the motion to dismiss, we have considered whether they could be understood to relate to the judgment of November 20, 2015 after trial (as noticed by the defendants). To the extent they can be so understood, the arguments are inadequately presented for our review. The defendants have provided no trial materials, including the trial transcript or exhibits, the instructions, their motion for directed verdict, or their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Judgment affirmed .