Corbett v. Davis

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Corbett v. Davis

38 N.E.2d 565, 310 Mass. 829, 1941 Mass. LEXIS 900

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedNovember 12, 1941

StatusPublished

This text of 38 N.E.2d 565 (Corbett v. Davis) 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

Corbett v. Davis, 38 N.E.2d 565, 310 Mass. 829, 1941 Mass. LEXIS 900 (Mass. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

By this action of tort for negligence brought in a District Court the plaintiff sought to recover compensation for personal injuries. The trial judge found for the plaintiff, making specific findings of fact and denying various requests of the defendant for rulings, including a ruling that there “is no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant.” There was a report to the Appellate Division which ordered the finding for the plaintiff vacated and judgment entered for the defendant. The plaintiff appealed to this court. The Appellate Division was right. The ruling requested here specifically referred to should have been given. See Haley v. Case, 142 Mass. 316, 322; McCann v. Central Construction Co. 218 Mass. 595, 596; Mohammed v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad, 290 Mass. 219, 223. If it had been given it would have disposed of the case in favor of the defendant. It is therefore unnecessary to consider other matters argued.

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

By this action of tort for negligence brought in a District Court the plaintiff sought to recover compensation for personal injuries. The trial judge found for the plaintiff, making specific findings of fact and denying various requests of the defendant for rulings, including a ruling that there “is no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant.” There was a report to the Appellate Division which ordered the finding for the plaintiff vacated and judgment entered for the defendant. The plaintiff appealed to this court. The Appellate Division was right. The ruling requested here specifically referred to should have been given. See Haley v. Case, 142 Mass. 316, 322; McCann v. Central Construction Co. 218 Mass. 595, 596; Mohammed v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad, 290 Mass. 219, 223. If it had been given it would have disposed of the case in favor of the defendant. It is therefore unnecessary to consider other matters argued.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 N.E.2d 565, 310 Mass. 829, 1941 Mass. LEXIS 900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/corbett-v-davis-mass-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack