Connolly v. City of Boston

117 Mass. 64, 1875 Mass. LEXIS 150
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided January 15, 1875·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

Gray, C. J.

The plaintiff’s own testimony showed that he was travelling on the Lord’s day on a matter of his own secular [65]*65business, and not from the pressure of any “necessity” upon himself, or “ charity ” towards any other person, upon any possible interpretation of those words. He cannot therefore maintain this action. Gen. Sts. c. 84, § 2. Bosworth v. Swansey, 10 Met. 363. Jones v. Andover, 10 Allen, 18. Stanton v. Metropolitan Railroad, 14 Allen, 485. Commonwealth v. Sampson, 97 Mass. 407. Commonwealth v. Josselyn, Ib. 411. Exceptions overruled.

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

Connolly v. City of Boston, 117 Mass. 64, 1875 Mass. LEXIS 150 (Mass. 1875).

117 Mass. 64 (Connolly v. City of Boston) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McCarthy v. Inhabitants of Leeds
101 A. 448 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1917)
McNeill v. Railroad Co.
67 L.R.A. 227 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1904)
Tackett v. Taylor County
98 N.W. 730 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1904)
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Yopst
3 L.R.A. 224 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1889)
State v. Knight
1 S.E. 569 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1887)
Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Johnson
71 Tex. 619 (Texas Supreme Court, 1886)
Bucher v. Fitchburg Railroad
131 Mass. 156 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1881)
White v. Lang
128 Mass. 598 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1880)
Smith v. Boston & Maine Railroad
120 Mass. 490 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1876)