Mahoney v. Norcross
This text of 187 N.E. 227 (Mahoney v. Norcross) 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.
Opinion
The case at bar falls within the general principle that in an action arising from a collision between automobiles at intersecting streets the due care and contributory negligence of the plaintiff and the negligence, of the defendant present questions of fact. The finding in favor of the plaintiff imports a finding of all subsidiary facts essential to that conclusion and must stand unless unsupported by the evidence. Without summarizing the testimony it is enough to say that a finding in favor of the plaintiff was warranted. Ferreira v. Zaccolanti, 281 Mass. 91.
The defendant presented several requests for rulings which were refused because based on assumptions of facts not in accord with the facts found by the trial judge. It is not [154]*154necessary to examine such requests because they are immaterial in view of the facts found. John Hetherington & Sons, Ltd. v. William Firth Co. 210 Mass. 8, 18. Castano v. Leone, 278 Mass. 429.
Order dismissing report affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
187 N.E. 227, 284 Mass. 153, 1933 Mass. LEXIS 1065, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mahoney-v-norcross-mass-1933.