Childs v. O'Leary

54 N.E. 490, 174 Mass. 111, 1899 Mass. LEXIS 878
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJuly 3, 1899
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 54 N.E. 490 (Childs v. O'Leary) 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
Childs v. O'Leary, 54 N.E. 490, 174 Mass. 111, 1899 Mass. LEXIS 878 (Mass. 1899).

Opinion

Lathrop, J.

The plaintiff and the defendant owned adjoining parcels of land abutting on the rear on a high ledge, fifty or seventy-five feet high. The surface of the plaintiff’s lot was mostly on the upper part of the ledge, and the defendant’s below. Through the negligence of the defendant in blasting on his portion of the ledge, the plaintiff’s house was injured, and a wall about twenty-five feet in length, together with one hundred and eighteen square feet of the plaintiff’s soil and rock, was destroyed. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $250, and the case is brought here on exceptions to the admission of evidence.

The first question is, whether one Mack, who qualified as an expert on building and stone work, was also qualified as an expert on blasting. We are of opinion that, on the evidence stated in the bill of exceptions, it was within the power of the judge who presided in the lower court to allow him to testify as an expert. Manning v. Lowell, 173 Mass. 100.

The remaining question is whether Mack could testify as to the cost of building a new wall. For this purpose he gave two estimates, according to different plans. The objection made to this evidence is that it does not give the true measure of damages. But We are of opinion that the jury might well have found that this was the cheapest way of repairing the injury done; and that the instructions to the jury on the question of damages were so full and explicit that the defendant has no ground of exception.

Exceptions, overruled.

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

Related

Carter v. Empire Mutual Insurance
374 N.E.2d 585 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1978)
Medford Housing Authority v. MARINUCCI BROS. & CO. INC
241 N.E.2d 834 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1968)
Colangeli v. Construction Service Co.
233 N.E.2d 192 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1968)
Dalton v. Demos Bros. General Contractors, Inc.
135 N.E.2d 646 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1956)
Dalton v. DEMOS BROTHERS GENERAL CONTRACTORS, INC.
135 N.E.2d 646 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1956)
Blood v. Cohen
113 N.E.2d 448 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1953)
Gallagher v. R. E. Cunniff, Inc.
49 N.E.2d 448 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1943)
Crystal Concrete Corp. v. Town of Braintree
35 N.E.2d 672 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1941)
Nugent v. Boston Consolidated Gas Co.
130 N.E. 488 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1921)
Bowen v. Jones
234 Mass. 90 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1919)
Hopkins v. American Pneumatic Service Co.
80 N.E. 624 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1907)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
54 N.E. 490, 174 Mass. 111, 1899 Mass. LEXIS 878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/childs-v-oleary-mass-1899.