Fletcher v. Willis

62 N.E. 2, 180 Mass. 243, 1902 Mass. LEXIS 1056
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJanuary 2, 1902
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 62 N.E. 2 (Fletcher v. Willis) 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
Fletcher v. Willis, 62 N.E. 2, 180 Mass. 243, 1902 Mass. LEXIS 1056 (Mass. 1902).

Opinion

Holmes, O. J.

This is an action, for an assault and battery, admitted to have been unjustifiable, committed by the defen drant’s servant, upon the plaintiff. The case went to the jury on the single question whether the servant was acting within the scope of his authority. The scene of the assault was a race track, and the servant had been employed by the defendant about the track for a long time. The plaintiff contended and asked for a ruling that, in connection with his long employment and the fact that the defendant did not call him to deny it, the servant’s conduct was evidence of his authority. The judge refused the request and ruled that the servant’s acts were not evidence of his authority as against the defendant. The plaintiff excepted. The only exceptions are tq this refusal and ruling.

The ruling of the judge was right. Brigham v. Peters, 1 Gray, 139. Mechem, Agency, § 100. That asked for the plaintiff might have been rejected properly enough even if it had not been wrong in point of law, as an attempt to gather details into an argument and then to put the argument into the mouth of the judge.

The servant was present in court and stood up to be identified before the jury. Neither party saw fit to call him. The judge in adverting to the fact that the defendant did not put him on the stand, left it wholly to the jury to say whether under the circumstances any inference should be. drawn as to what his testimony on the point of his authority would have been. This was as much as the plaintiff was entitled to. The judge could not discriminate against the defendant for not doing what, so far as appears, was equally in the power of both parties to' do, and give to the' défendant’s. omission the effect of making the servant’s acts prove his authority, when otherwise they could not have that effect.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

Hourun v. TWP. COMMITTEE OF UNION
238 A.2d 501 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1968)
Congleton v. Pura-Tex Stone Corp.
147 A.2d 263 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1958)
Collopy v. Newark Eye and Ear Infirmary
141 A.2d 276 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1958)
Public Service Elec. and Gas Co. v. Waldroup
119 A.2d 172 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1955)
Fannick v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
113 A.2d 28 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1955)
McFadden's Lounge, Inc. v. DIV., ALCOHOLIC BEV. CONTROL
109 A.2d 444 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1954)
Heake v. Atlantic Casualty Ins. Co.
102 A.2d 385 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1954)
Parker v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co.
105 A.2d 677 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1953)
Bantam Books, Inc. v. Melko
96 A.2d 47 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1953)
Hartigan v. Eastern Racing Ass'n
41 N.E.2d 28 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1942)
Commonwealth v. O'Rourke
40 N.E.2d 883 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1942)
Little v. Massachusetts Northeastern Street Railway Co.
118 N.E. 245 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1918)
Card v. Turner Centre Dairying Ass'n
113 N.E. 187 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1916)
Poirier v. Terceiro
224 Mass. 435 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1916)
Robinson v. Doe
224 Mass. 319 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1916)
Institution for Savings v. Inhabitants of Brookline
220 Mass. 300 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1915)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
62 N.E. 2, 180 Mass. 243, 1902 Mass. LEXIS 1056, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fletcher-v-willis-mass-1902.