Demers v. Marshall
52 N.E. 1066, 172 Mass. 548, 1899 Mass. LEXIS 847
Opinion
This case offers another instance of injury sustained. by the presence of a projecting set screw as a part of machinery with which the plaintiff had to do in his work, and is governed by Rooney v. Sewall & Day Cordage Co. 161 Mass. 153, and by Ford v. Mount Tom Sulphite Pulp Co., ante, 544.
Exceptions sustained.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Demers v. Marshall, 52 N.E. 1066, 172 Mass. 548, 1899 Mass. LEXIS 847 (Mass. 1899).
52 N.E. 1066 (Demers v. Marshall) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Pettingill v. William Porter & Son, Inc.
107 N.E. 269 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1914)
Perkins v. Oxford Paper Co.
71 A. 476 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1908)
Demers v. Marshall
59 N.E. 454 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1901)