Galvin v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Galvin v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.

62 N.E. 961, 180 Mass. 587, 1902 Mass. LEXIS 1148

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedFebruary 28, 1902

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 62 N.E. 961 (Galvin v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.) 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

Galvin v. Boston Elevated Railway Co., 62 N.E. 961, 180 Mass. 587, 1902 Mass. LEXIS 1148 (Mass. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

Holmes, C. J.

This is an action upon an oral contract to give the plaintiff employment, which he says the defendant made as a part of the consideration for his executing a release of all claims growing out of a personal injury suffered by him while in the defendant’s employ. At the trial evidence of the contract was excluded and the plaintiff excepted. We are of opinion that the evidence should have been admitted. Proof that the contract was made as an additional consideration is not precluded by the fact that the release purports to be in consideration of the sum of $49.63. Hill v. Whidden, 158 Mass. 267. Clark v. Deshon, 12 Cush. 589. Neither did the evidence contradict the operative words of release. The release is of rights given to the plaintiff by the law in consequence of the injury to him. The evidence went to prove new rights arising not out of the injury but out of a contract contemporaneous with the release. The release left the contract untouched. Hill v. Whidden, 158 Mass. 267.

The case at bar is sufficiently disposed of by Hill v. Whidden, but the decisions in other jurisdictions, so far as we have seen, are to the same effect. Hobbs v. Brush Electric Light Co. 75 Mich. 550. Carter White Lead Co. v. Kinlin, 47 Neb. 409. Harrington v. Kansas City Cable Railway, 60 Mo. App. 223. Pennsylvania Co. v. Dolan, 6 Ind. App. 109. Smith v. St. Paul & Duluth Railroad, 60 Minn. 330.

Exceptions sustained.

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

Holmes, C. J.

This is an action upon an oral contract to give the plaintiff employment, which he says the defendant made as a part of the consideration for his executing a release of all claims growing out of a personal injury suffered by him while in the defendant’s employ. At the trial evidence of the contract was excluded and the plaintiff excepted. We are of opinion that the evidence should have been admitted. Proof that the contract was made as an additional consideration is not precluded by the fact that the release purports to be in consideration of the sum of $49.63. Hill v. Whidden, 158 Mass. 267. Clark v. Deshon, 12 Cush. 589. Neither did the evidence contradict the operative words of release. The release is of rights given to the plaintiff by the law in consequence of the injury to him. The evidence went to prove new rights arising not out of the injury but out of a contract contemporaneous with the release. The release left the contract untouched. Hill v. Whidden, 158 Mass. 267.

The case at bar is sufficiently disposed of by Hill v. Whidden, but the decisions in other jurisdictions, so far as we have seen, are to the same effect. Hobbs v. Brush Electric Light Co. 75 Mich. 550. Carter White Lead Co. v. Kinlin, 47 Neb. 409. Harrington v. Kansas City Cable Railway, 60 Mo. App. 223. Pennsylvania Co. v. Dolan, 6 Ind. App. 109. Smith v. St. Paul & Duluth Railroad, 60 Minn. 330.

Exceptions sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 N.E. 961, 180 Mass. 587, 1902 Mass. LEXIS 1148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/galvin-v-boston-elevated-railway-co-mass-1902.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack