Cole v. Groves

134 Mass. 471, 1883 Mass. LEXIS 331
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMarch 12, 1883
StatusPublished
Cited by24 cases

This text of 134 Mass. 471 (Cole v. Groves) 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
Cole v. Groves, 134 Mass. 471, 1883 Mass. LEXIS 331 (Mass. 1883).

Opinion

ColburSi, J.

We have no doubt that § 1 of the Gen. Sts. c. 85, (Pub. Sts. c. 99, § 1,) under which this action is brought, so far as it authorizes a third person to recover three times the sum of money or value of goods lost by gaming, is a penal statute; or that the Gen. Sts. c. 155, § 20, (Pub. Sts. c. 197, § 4,) apply to this action. Read v. Stewart, 129 Mass. 407. Cumberland & Oxford Canal v. Hitchings, 57 Maine, 146. A right of action is given to the loser to recover the money or value of the goods lost, but his right of action is limited to three months, and is remedial. After the expiration of that time, all right of action in the loser is gone-, and a right of action accrues to any third person who may choose to sue for the penalty; but this action must be brought within one year next after the offence is committed, which, in this case, was the winning and receiv ing the money. Plummer v. Gray, 8 Gray, 243. Barnicoat v. Folling, 3 Gray, 134. We are of opinion that the statute of limitations was properly pleaded to all the causes of action, if there was more than one set out in the plaintiff’s declaration.

We do not understand from the bill of exceptions that there was any contest that the money was lost on August 6 and 7, 1880, or that there was any evidence which could have warranted the jury in finding that the loss occurred at any other time; and, as the action was not brought until September 19, 1881, we think the jury should have been instructed that the action could not be maintained. Exceptions sustained.

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

Related

Becker v. Computer Sciences Corp.
541 F. Supp. 694 (S.D. Texas, 1982)
Lynch v. Signal Finance Co. of Quincy
327 N.E.2d 732 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1975)
Kinzua Lumber Co. v. Daggett
281 P.2d 221 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1955)
Weinstein v. Sea View, Inc.
188 F.2d 116 (Fifth Circuit, 1951)
Heitfeld v. Benevolent & Protective Order of Keglers
220 P.2d 655 (Washington Supreme Court, 1950)
Donovan v. Eastern Racing Ass'n
86 N.E.2d 903 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1949)
Shenk v. Cohen
51 A.2d 298 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1947)
Cummings v. Board of Education
1942 OK 154 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1942)
Pittsley v. David
11 N.E.2d 461 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1937)
Richter v. Empire Trust Co.
20 F. Supp. 289 (S.D. New York, 1937)
E. S. Parks Shellac Co. v. Harris
129 N.E. 617 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1921)
Hall v. Hall
91 A. 949 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1914)
Gruetter v. Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co.
181 F. 248 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Tennessee, 1909)
State v. Corron
62 A. 1044 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1905)
Wilson v. Head
69 N.E. 317 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1904)
Brady v. Daly
175 U.S. 148 (Supreme Court, 1899)
Wall v. Metropolitan Stock Exchange
168 Mass. 282 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1897)
Aylsworth v. Curtis
33 L.R.A. 110 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1896)
Huntington v. Attrill
146 U.S. 657 (Supreme Court, 1892)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
134 Mass. 471, 1883 Mass. LEXIS 331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cole-v-groves-mass-1883.