
    Cora Demers & another vs. Dominic Scaramella.
    Hampden.
    May 18, 1925.
    May 21, 1925.
    Present: Rugg, C.J., Braley, Crosby, Pierce, & Carroll, JJ.
    
      Practice, Civil, Appeal, New trial. District Court.
    
    An appeal from a decision by an appellate division ordering a new trial of an action in a district court should not be entered in this court until the case has been finally heard in the district court and the appellate division.
    Tobt for damages to an automobile of the plaintiffs resulting from a collision with an automobile of the defendant alleged to have been operated negligently. Writ in the District Court of Springfield dated November 12, 1923.
    In the District Court, the trial judge found that the plaintiffs’ automobile “was, at the time of the accident, •being operated by a non-registered part owner in the presence of a part owner, in whose name the car was registered, and with the latter’s consent and for the benefit of both, and that said registered part owner occupied the front seat beside the operating part owner where he could give directions as to the management and control of the car.” The judge granted a ruling, asked for by the plaintiffs, that “Upon all the evidence the plaintiffs are entitled to recover,” found for the plaintiffs in the sum of $350, and reported the action to the Appellate Division for the Western District, who ordered that the ruling upon the plaintiffs’ request be reversed and a new trial be had of the whole case. The plaintiffs appealed from that order.
    The case was submitted on briefs.
    
      I. R. Shaw, for the plaintiffs.
    
      A. A. Simpson, C. R. Clason, & G. J. Callahan, for the defendant.
   Rugg, C.J.

This is an appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Western District, reversing a ruling of a judge of the District Court of Springfield and directing a new trial of the whole case. The case is here prematurely. Appeal does not lie immediately to this court from such an order. It is not a final decision. The new trial must be had. Real Property Co. Inc. v. Pitt, 230 Mass. 526. Matson v. Sbrega, 250 Mass. 138, and cases there collected. Beacon Tool & Machinery Co. v. National Products Manuf. Co., ante, 88. It may be added that the question which the parties have sought to argue is not fairly presented, because a ruling of law that a plaintiff can recover rarely can be made. Even facts found, unless including a statement of all inferences drawn, do not afford basis for such rulings.

Appeal dismissed.  