Bullock v. Haverhill & Boston Dispatch Co.

72 N.E. 256, 187 Mass. 91
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided November 23, 1904·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Lathrop, J.

We find nothing in the facts of this case which distinguishes it from Moore v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad, 173 Mass. 335, and Cote v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad, 182 Mass. 290. There was a presumption of fact that the injury sued for was caused by the last carrier. While the case was submitted to the court below on agreed facts, it was agreed that the court might draw inferences. The finding of that court in favor of the plaintiff was on a matter of fact which we cannot change, unless the facts agreed show, as matter of law, that the last carrier has exonerated itself from liability. We cannot say that they so show.

Judgment for the plaintiff affirmed.

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

Bullock v. Haverhill & Boston Dispatch Co., 72 N.E. 256, 187 Mass. 91 (Mass. 1904).

72 N.E. 256 (Bullock v. Haverhill & Boston Dispatch Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

A. S. Burg Co. v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.
8 Mass. App. Dec. 3 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1954)
Lyon v. Boston & Maine Railroad
158 N.E. 663 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1927)
Northern Industrial Chemical Co. v. Director General of Railroads
249 Mass. 246 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1924)
Boynton v. American Express Co.
108 N.E. 942 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1915)
Colbath v. Bangor & Aroostook Railroad
74 A. 918 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1909)
Barron, Boyle & Co. v. C., C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co.
8 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 517 (Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County, 1908)