Morley v. Eastern Express Co.
116 Mass. 97, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 30
Opinion
There was no evidence that the box had not been delivered to Gough, according to the directions with which it was sent by the plaintiff. Giving the fullest effect to the testimony of the plaintiff, it had no more tendency to show that the box was withheld or had been lost by the defendant than by Gough. The burden in this respect was upon the plaintiff, and she failed to maintain it. Smith v. First National Bank in Westfield, 99 Mass. 605. Exceptions sustained.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Morley v. Eastern Express Co., 116 Mass. 97, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 30 (Mass. 1874).
116 Mass. 97 (Morley v. Eastern Express Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Donahue v. Leventhal
19 N.E.2d 544 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1939)
Nollman v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad
131 N.E. 195 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1921)
United States Cement Co. v. Whitted
90 N.E. 481 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1910)
Evansville Metal Bed Co. v. Loge
85 N.E. 979 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1908)
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Des Moines Nat. Bank
145 F. 273 (Eighth Circuit, 1906)