Eagan v. Maguire Penniman

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Eagan v. Maguire Penniman

42 A. 506, 21 R.I. 189, 1899 R.I. LEXIS 3

Supreme Court of Rhode Island·Decided February 10, 1899·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The first exception in the petition was not pressed.

*190 John W. Hogan, for plaintiff. James M. Ripley and John Henshaw, for defendants.

(1) We think the second exception must be overruled. The fact that the plaintiff’s intestate was engaged in the work of his ordinary calling at the time of the accident, and that it was on Sunday, do not constitute a defence to the action, since the labor on Sunday was not the immediate and proximate cause of the accident. Baldwin v. Barney, 12 R. I. 892.

Petition for new trial denied and dismissed, and case remitted to the Common Pleas Division with direction to enter judgment upon the verdict.

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

Per Curiam.

The first exception in the petition was not pressed.

*190 John W. Hogan, for plaintiff. James M. Ripley and John Henshaw, for defendants.

(1) We think the second exception must be overruled. The fact that the plaintiff’s intestate was engaged in the work of his ordinary calling at the time of the accident, and that it was on Sunday, do not constitute a defence to the action, since the labor on Sunday was not the immediate and proximate cause of the accident. Baldwin v. Barney, 12 R. I. 892.

Petition for new trial denied and dismissed, and case remitted to the Common Pleas Division with direction to enter judgment upon the verdict.

Eagan v. Maguire Penniman, 42 A. 506, 21 R.I. 189, 1899 R.I. LEXIS 3 (R.I. 1899).

Pincite

42 A. 506 (Eagan v. Maguire Penniman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.