Hatch v. Fuller

131 Mass. 574, 1881 Mass. LEXIS 327
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided November 21, 1881·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

By the Court.

The evidence objected to was rightly admitted. The complaints of pain do not appear to have been staremems of fact or narrations of past occurrences, but only such exclamations or expressions as usually and naturally accompany, and manifest the existence of, present pain or illness. Bacon v. Charlton, 7 Cush. 581. 1 Greenl. Ev. § 102. The fact that some of these complaints were made since the date of the writ affected their weight only, and not their competency. Barber v. Merriam, 11 Allen, 322. The plaintiff was entitled to recover in this action all the damages, whether before or after the date of the writ, resulting from the injury sued for.

The instructions requested were rightly refused. There was some evidence for the jury that the plaintiff’s daughter and servant had been debauched by the defendant, and thereby rendered less able to perform services for the plaintiff; whether it was sufficient was a question of fact, and not of law. The [577] foundation of the action is the loss of service; and the injury to the plaintiff’s feelings as a father is but one element in computing the damages, and need not be specially alleged in the. declaration. Phillips v. Hoyle, 4 Gray, 568.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Hatch v. Fuller, 131 Mass. 574, 1881 Mass. LEXIS 327 (Mass. 1881).

131 Mass. 574 (Hatch v. Fuller) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Weeks v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
77 N.E. 654 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1906)
Hayes v. Pitts-Kimball Co.
67 N.E. 249 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1903)
Cook v. Bartlett
61 N.E. 266 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1901)
Rupp v. Howard
86 N.W. 38 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1901)
Middleton v. Nichols
43 A. 575 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1898)
Railway Co. v. Murray
17 L.R.A. 787 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1891)
Thomas v. Herrall
23 P. 497 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1890)
Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. Snyder
20 N.E. 284 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1889)
Bridge v. City of Oshkosh
37 N.W. 409 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1888)
Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. Wood
14 N.E. 572 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1887)
Commonwealth v. Jardine
10 N.E. 250 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1887)
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railroad v. Johns
36 Kan. 769 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1887)