Bay State Street Railway Co. v. North Shore News Co.

112 N.E. 1007, 224 Mass. 323, 1916 Mass. LEXIS 1116
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMay 23, 1916
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 112 N.E. 1007 (Bay State Street Railway Co. v. North Shore News Co.) 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
Bay State Street Railway Co. v. North Shore News Co., 112 N.E. 1007, 224 Mass. 323, 1916 Mass. LEXIS 1116 (Mass. 1916).

Opinion

Loring, J.

1. We are of opinion that the injury to Higgins was within the contract by which the defendant agreed to save the plaintiff “harmless from all loss, cost or damage on account of injuries received by newsboys in its employ . . . while boarding, riding upon or leaving the cars of the Street Railway Company.” The unambiguous terms of this agreement are not to be cut down by the fact (if it is a fact) that the policy which the defendant (by paragraph 6) was to carry for the plaintiff’s benefit was not so broad.

2. The agreement here sued on is nothing more and nothing less than an agreement insuring the plaintiff against liability to newsboys “while boarding, riding upon or leaving the cars of the” plaintiff. Of its validity there can be no question. In his argument to the contrary the learned counsel for the defendant has overlooked the fact that the agreement is not with the newsboys but with a third person, to wit, the newsboys’ employer.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Aho v. BLANCHETTE PARAMOUNT DEV. ASSOC.
463 N.E.2d 1203 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1984)
United States v. Gaetano Frizzi
491 F.2d 1231 (First Circuit, 1974)
Winston v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
233 N.E.2d 95 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1967)
The Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. Kent
198 N.E.2d 615 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1964)
State ex rel. Raydel v. Raible
117 N.E.2d 480 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1954)
Suárez v. Soler
52 P.R. 662 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1938)
Suárez Viuda de Arroyo v. Saavedra Soler
52 P.R. Dec. 684 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1938)
Hozian v. Crucible Steel Casting Co.
9 N.E.2d 143 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1937)
Fisk Tire Co. v. Hood Coach Lines Inc.
188 S.E. 57 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)
Farrell v. Eastern Bridge & Structural Co.
197 N.E. 68 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1935)
Gast v. Goldenberg
183 N.E. 257 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1932)
Boston & Maine Railroad v. T. Stuart & Son Co.
127 N.E. 532 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1920)
Dibble v. San Joaquin Light & Power Corp.
190 P. 198 (California Court of Appeal, 1920)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
112 N.E. 1007, 224 Mass. 323, 1916 Mass. LEXIS 1116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bay-state-street-railway-co-v-north-shore-news-co-mass-1916.