Fuller v. Boston & Albany Railroad

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Fuller v. Boston & Albany Railroad

133 Mass. 491, 1882 Mass. LEXIS 266

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedOctober 23, 1882

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 133 Mass. 491 (Fuller v. Boston & Albany Railroad) 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

Fuller v. Boston & Albany Railroad, 133 Mass. 491, 1882 Mass. LEXIS 266 (Mass. 1882).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

The declaration, which contains only one count, sets out a good cause of action against the defendant at common law. It does not sufficiently set out a cause of action under the St. of 1874, c. 372, § 164. Wright v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 129 Mass. 440, The learned judge who presided at the trial in the Superior Court held that the count set out two distinct causes of action, and allowed the plaintiff to go to the jury both upon the liability of the defendant at common law and on its liability under the statute. This was error. The defendant was entitled to the ruling asked, that the plaintiff could not recover on his declaration unless he was using due care when hurt. As there must be a new trial, it is not necessary to consider the other questions presented by the bill of exceptions.

Exceptions sustained.

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

By the Court.

The declaration, which contains only one count, sets out a good cause of action against the defendant at common law. It does not sufficiently set out a cause of action under the St. of 1874, c. 372, § 164. Wright v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 129 Mass. 440, The learned judge who presided at the trial in the Superior Court held that the count set out two distinct causes of action, and allowed the plaintiff to go to the jury both upon the liability of the defendant at common law and on its liability under the statute. This was error. The defendant was entitled to the ruling asked, that the plaintiff could not recover on his declaration unless he was using due care when hurt. As there must be a new trial, it is not necessary to consider the other questions presented by the bill of exceptions.

Exceptions sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 Mass. 491, 1882 Mass. LEXIS 266, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fuller-v-boston-albany-railroad-mass-1882.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack