Barnes v. Hurd

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Barnes v. Hurd

11 Mass. 57

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMarch 15, 1814

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 11 Mass. 57 (Barnes v. Hurd) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barnes v. Hurd, 11 Mass. 57 (Mass. 1814).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The counsel for the defendant has correctly stated the distinction between those facts which will support an action of [61]*61trespass vi et armis, and those for which an action of the case should be brought. “ Where the injury is committed by the immediate act complained of, the action must be trespass; if the injury be merely consequential upon that act, an action of the case is the proper remedy.” The first count of the declaration before us cannot, then, be sustained. The second count, being for an injury done by the defendant’s servant, stands on different ground. The injury here arose, so far as the defendant was concerned, from his employing a careless or a mischievous servant; and it was in its nature merely consequential. The judge who sat in the trial having certified, from his notes, that all the evidence produced applied exclusively to this count,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The counsel for the defendant has correctly stated the distinction between those facts which will support an action of [61]*61trespass vi et armis, and those for which an action of the case should be brought. “ Where the injury is committed by the immediate act complained of, the action must be trespass; if the injury be merely consequential upon that act, an action of the case is the proper remedy.” The first count of the declaration before us cannot, then, be sustained. The second count, being for an injury done by the defendant’s servant, stands on different ground. The injury here arose, so far as the defendant was concerned, from his employing a careless or a mischievous servant; and it was in its nature merely consequential. The judge who sat in the trial having certified, from his notes, that all the evidence produced applied exclusively to this count,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 Mass. 57, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnes-v-hurd-mass-1814.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack