Crompton v. Williams

103 N.E. 298, 216 Mass. 184
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedNovember 25, 1913
StatusPublished
Cited by36 cases

This text of 103 N.E. 298 (Crompton v. Williams) 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
Crompton v. Williams, 103 N.E. 298, 216 Mass. 184 (Mass. 1913).

Opinion

Braley, J.

If the automobile operated and controlled by the plaintiff corporation was not properly registered, it was unlawfully upon the highway, and neither plaintiff can recover, although the collision would not have occurred but for the defendant’s negligence. St. 1909, c. 534, § 2. Chase v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad, 208 Mass. 137,157,158. Bourne v. Whitman, 209 Mass. 155, 172. The statute provides that the application must contain, in addition to such other particulars as the commission may require, a statement of the name, place of residence and address of the applicant with a brief description of the motor vehicle. St. 1909, c. 534, § 2.

Before the formation of the corporation Charles Crompton, the owner and licensed operator of the car, to whom we shall refer as the plaintiff, carried on business under the name of “ Charles Crompton & Sons.” A corporation, a partnership or an individual [187]*187may adopt a trade name under which business can be transacted, actions instituted, or defended, and the title to property acquired and transmitted. Gifford v. Rockett, 121 Mass. 431. Phipps v. Little, 213 Mass. 414, 416, and cases cited. The plaintiff’s application and the registration followed the name in which he did business. But if registration under a fictitious name adopted for the purpose of concealing identity would not be a compliance with the statute, because the record would not show, nor the certificate contain, a descriptive statement by which the true owner could be ascertained, the jury properly could find that" the plaintiff was well known in the community by his trade name. If this appeared, the requirements of the statute were satisfied.

Nor is the right of recovery barred by the failure of the plaintiff to comply with the St. of 1907, c. 539, as amended by St. 1908, c. 316, which provides, that individuals engaged in business under names other than their own shall file with the clerk of the city or town in which the place of business is situated, a certificate stating the full name and residence of each person by whom it is conducted. The act is intended for the information and protection of creditors with whom the trader contracts under an artificial designation which in the absence of such certificate may enable the actual or responsible debtor for want of identification to escape all liability. '

The plaintiff not having parted with the ownership, even if he had become an employee of the corporation by which.the car had been hired, the presiding judge rightly refused to rule that the actions could not be maintained, and submitted the cases to the jury under instructions which are unexceptionable.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

Joseph A. Previte, Inc. v. Bower
1983 Mass. App. Div. 242 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1983)
Weston v. Ruscito
31 Mass. App. Dec. 103 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1964)
Coyle v. Swanson
185 N.E.2d 741 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1962)
Shane v. Goldstein
25 Mass. App. Dec. 5 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1962)
Silva v. Niemi
22 Mass. App. Dec. 44 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1961)
Stokes Food Service, Inc. v. Vellis
16 Mass. App. Dec. 94 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1958)
Parkhill v. Sulborski
13 Mass. App. Div. 153 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1948)
Merolevitz
70 N.E.2d 249 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1946)
Korsun v. McManus
63 N.E.2d 457 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1945)
Puro v. Heikkinen
55 N.E.2d 762 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1944)
Automotive Distributors, Inc. v. Davis & O'Connor Co.
7 Mass. App. Div. 290 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1942)
Boyer v. Bowles
37 N.E.2d 489 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1941)
Dunn v. Merrill
34 N.E.2d 498 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1941)
Kaiser v. Zundel
95 P.2d 499 (Utah Supreme Court, 1939)
Cumberland County Power & Light Co. v. Gordon
7 A.2d 619 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1939)
Munson v. Bay State Dredging & Contracting Co.
4 Mass. App. Div. 103 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1939)
Bridges v. Hart
18 N.E.2d 1020 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1939)
Market Commercial Garage, Inc. v. Shapiro
4 Mass. App. Div. 77 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1939)
Lacoste v. Fagin
2 Mass. App. Div. 228 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1937)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
103 N.E. 298, 216 Mass. 184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crompton-v-williams-mass-1913.