Bowie v. Coffin Valve Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Bowie v. Coffin Valve Co.

92 N.E. 334, 206 Mass. 305, 1910 Mass. LEXIS 802

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJune 27, 1910

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 92 N.E. 334 (Bowie v. Coffin Valve 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

Bowie v. Coffin Valve Co., 92 N.E. 334, 206 Mass. 305, 1910 Mass. LEXIS 802 (Mass. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Loring, J.

At the trial after the decision in Bowie v. Coffin Valve Co. 200 Mass. 571, both defendants rested upon the plaintiff’s testimony. The presiding judge directed a verdict for the defendant in this action (the action against the Valve Company) and submitted the case to the jury in the action against the Engine Company.

The only attempt to make out negligence on the part of the defendant was by showing that Daniels was negligent and that he was a superintendent of the defendant within R. L. c. 106, § 71, cl. 2.

But we are of opinion that by the true construction of the contract between it and the Valve Company the Engine Company agreed, as a contractor, to do the work of superintending the erection of the engine and that the Engine Company did not agree to lend one of its employees to the Valve Company to act as the Valve Company’s superintendent in erecting the engine. That is to say, as matter of law Daniels was in the employ of the Engine Company at the time of the accident and not in that of the defendant.

It follows that the ruling was right.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Loring, J.

At the trial after the decision in Bowie v. Coffin Valve Co. 200 Mass. 571, both defendants rested upon the plaintiff’s testimony. The presiding judge directed a verdict for the defendant in this action (the action against the Valve Company) and submitted the case to the jury in the action against the Engine Company.

The only attempt to make out negligence on the part of the defendant was by showing that Daniels was negligent and that he was a superintendent of the defendant within R. L. c. 106, § 71, cl. 2.

But we are of opinion that by the true construction of the contract between it and the Valve Company the Engine Company agreed, as a contractor, to do the work of superintending the erection of the engine and that the Engine Company did not agree to lend one of its employees to the Valve Company to act as the Valve Company’s superintendent in erecting the engine. That is to say, as matter of law Daniels was in the employ of the Engine Company at the time of the accident and not in that of the defendant.

It follows that the ruling was right.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 N.E. 334, 206 Mass. 305, 1910 Mass. LEXIS 802, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowie-v-coffin-valve-co-mass-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack