French v. Merchants & Miners Transportation Co.

85 N.E. 424, 199 Mass. 433, 1908 Mass. LEXIS 849
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided June 19, 1908·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Loring, J.

It is stated in the bill of exceptions that the plaintiff did not “ contend that this fire was due to any negligence whatsoever on the part of the defendant, nor that the defendant was lacking in diligence in trying to control and extinguish said fire.” This ended the plaintiff’s case unless it was taken out of the usual rule by the fact that the jury were warranted in finding from the testimony of the plaintiff that she “ could see large objects, but could not read print and had not been able to read for over a year previous to this trip.”

We do not think that the plaintiff’s case would have been taken out of the usual rule if the jury had believed the plaintiff and found that her eyesight was what she testified it to be.

The usual rule is that a passenger who accepts a ticket on which the contract of transportation is stated is bound by its terms whether he reads it or not. Grace v. Adams, 100 Mass. [435]*435505. Quimby v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 150 Mass. 365. Fonseca v. Cunard Steamship Co. 153 Mass. 553. Cox v. Central Vermont Railroad, 170 Mass. 129. Graves v. Adams Express Co. 176 Mass. 280. John Hood Co. v. American Pneumatic Service Co. 191 Mass. 27.

The ticket here in question must be taken on this bill of exceptions to contain on its face nearly two quarto pages of printed provisions.

Footnotes

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

French v. Merchants & Miners Transportation Co., 85 N.E. 424, 199 Mass. 433, 1908 Mass. LEXIS 849 (Mass. 1908).

85 N.E. 424 (French v. Merchants & Miners Transportation Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

D'Aloisio v. Morton's, Inc.
19 Mass. App. Dec. 100 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1960)
Abbasciano v. Home Lines Agency, Inc.
144 F. Supp. 235 (D. Massachusetts, 1956)
Kergald v. Armstrong Transfer Express Co.
113 N.E.2d 53 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1953)
Cornblatt v. Rubenstein
2 Mass. App. Div. 653 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1937)
Henderson v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co.
155 N.E. 1 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1927)
Mason v. . R. R.
75 S.E. 25 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1912)
Mason v. Seaboard Air Line Railway Co.
159 N.C. 183 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1912)