Jasman v. Meaney

146 N.E. 257, 250 Mass. 576, 1925 Mass. LEXIS 971
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJanuary 20, 1925
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 146 N.E. 257 (Jasman v. Meaney) 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
Jasman v. Meaney, 146 N.E. 257, 250 Mass. 576, 1925 Mass. LEXIS 971 (Mass. 1925).

Opinion

By the Court.

These are actions of tort wherein the plaintiffs seek to recover compensation for damages arising out of the collision of an automobile, owned and operated by one of the plaintiffs, in which both were riding, with an automobile owned by the defendant and operated by one McCarthy. There was testimony to the effect that after the collision the plaintiff Mrs. Jasman had a conversation with the defendant in which, after having examined her automobile, he told her to have it fixed, mail the bill to him and he would pay the expenses, and that he expected to pay her between $100 and $125, which was the estimated cost of repairing it; and that later the defendant telephoned to inquire if she had had the machine fixed and, on being told that she had not, he requested her to send him the bill as soon as the repairs were made. There was other testimony bearing upon the question whether McCarthy at the time of the collision was the agent of the defendant acting within the scope of his authority.

Verdicts could not rightly have been directed for the defendant upon this state of the evidence. The statements made by the defendant to the plaintiff Mrs. Jasman do not appear to have been made for the purpose of compromise. They may have been found by the jury to have been admissions "of liability, including, so far as necessary to that end, responsibility for the negligence of McCarthy. The case is governed by several recent decisions. Dennison v. Swerdlove, ante, 507. Wiseman v. Rome, ante, 505. Mielke v. Dobrydnio, 244 Mass. 89, 92. Ellis v. Pierce, 172 Mass. 220.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

Casper v. Lavoie
294 N.E.2d 466 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1973)
Berkens v. Denver Coca-Cola Bottling Co.
122 P.2d 884 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1942)
Zimmerman v. Litvich
7 N.E.2d 437 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1937)
Tosti v. Rossetti
179 N.E. 212 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1931)
Brown Ex Rel. Webb v. Wood
160 S.E. 281 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1931)
Epperson v. Rostatter
168 N.E. 126 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1929)
Bernasconi v. Bassi
158 N.E. 341 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1927)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
146 N.E. 257, 250 Mass. 576, 1925 Mass. LEXIS 971, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jasman-v-meaney-mass-1925.