Crosman v. City of Lynn

121 Mass. 301, 1876 Mass. LEXIS 363
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided November 14, 1876·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Gray, C. J.

The evidence would warrant the jury in finding that the maidservant, without any fault on her part, was prevented from returning from her mother’s house to her employer’s on Saturday night, and returned early on Sunday morning for the purpose of preparing needful food for her employer’s [303] family, which was a work of necessity, and justified her in travelling, and her employer or his manservant in driving her, on the Lord’s day. Gen. Sts. c. 84, § 1. Rex v. Cox, 2 Burr. 785. The King v. Younger, 5 T. R. 449. Commonwealth v. Sampson, 97 Mass. 407, 409. Exceptions sustained.

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

Crosman v. City of Lynn, 121 Mass. 301, 1876 Mass. LEXIS 363 (Mass. 1876).

121 Mass. 301 (Crosman v. City of Lynn) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Chadwick v. Stokes
162 F.2d 132 (Third Circuit, 1947)
Gerretson v. Rambler Garage Co.
136 N.W. 186 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1912)
State v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad
143 S.W. 785 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1912)
Donovan v. McCarty
30 N.E. 221 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1892)
Buck v. City of Biddeford
19 A. 912 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1890)
State v. Knight
1 S.E. 569 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1887)
Carver v. State
69 Ind. 61 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1879)