Huff v. Ford

126 Mass. 24, 1878 Mass. LEXIS 156
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedNovember 20, 1878
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 126 Mass. 24 (Huff v. Ford) 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
Huff v. Ford, 126 Mass. 24, 1878 Mass. LEXIS 156 (Mass. 1878).

Opinion

By the Court.

The driver, employed and paid by the defendant, and who had the entire management of the horses as to the manner of driving them, and whose duty it was to see that they were properly shod, was the servant of the defendant in so driving the horses and having them shod; and for injuries to third persons by his negligence in these respects, the defendant was responsible. Whether the damage to the plaintiff’s property was caused by such negligence, or by mere accident, was a question for the jury, and appears to have been submitted to them without objection.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

Boehck Equipment Co. v. Industrial Commission
16 N.W.2d 298 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1944)
Hoefer v. Last
266 N.W. 196 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1936)
Mahoney v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad
132 N.E. 384 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1921)
Norton v. Day Coal Co.
192 Iowa 160 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1920)
Western Indemnity Co. v. Pillsbury
159 P. 721 (California Supreme Court, 1916)
Chapman v. Peoples Ice Co.
145 N.W. 1073 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1914)
Wilbur v. Forgione & Romano Co.
85 A. 48 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1912)
Ireland v. Clark
83 A. 667 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1912)
Higham v. T.W. Waterman Company
80 A. 178 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1911)
Philadelphia & R. Coal & Iron Co. v. Barrie
179 F. 50 (Eighth Circuit, 1910)
Shepard v. Jacobs
90 N.E. 392 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1910)
Morris v. Trudo
74 A. 387 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1909)
Cain v. Hugh Nawn Contracting Co.
88 N.E. 842 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1909)
Oulighan v. Butler
75 N.E. 726 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1905)
Delory v. Blodgett
69 N.E. 1078 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1904)
Sacker v. Waddell
56 A. 399 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1903)
Driscoll v. Towle
63 N.E. 922 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1902)
Dutton v. Amesbury National Bank
63 N.E. 405 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1902)
Stewart v. California Improvement Co.
52 L.R.A. 205 (California Supreme Court, 1900)
Stewart v. California Imp. Co.
61 P. 280 (California Supreme Court, 1900)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
126 Mass. 24, 1878 Mass. LEXIS 156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huff-v-ford-mass-1878.