O'Laughlin v. Boston & Maine Railroad

41 N.E. 121, 164 Mass. 139, 1895 Mass. LEXIS 196
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided June 21, 1895·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Field, C. J.

The rule of the company should have been admitted in evidence, but a majority of the court are unable to see that the defendant was harmed by the exclusion of it. Commonwealth v. Power, 7 Met. 596. O’Brien v. Boston Worcester Railroad, 15 Gray, 20. Wills v. Lynn Boston Railroad, 129 Mass. 351. O’Neill v. Lynn & Boston Railroad, 155 Mass. 371. The rule was very general in its terms, and the rule of law given by the court to the jury for their guidance was more specific than the rule of the company, but was the same in substance.

Exceptions overruled.

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

O'Laughlin v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 41 N.E. 121, 164 Mass. 139, 1895 Mass. LEXIS 196 (Mass. 1895).

41 N.E. 121 (O'Laughlin v. Boston & Maine Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Renaud v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad
97 N.E. 98 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1912)
Dixon v. New England Railroad
60 N.E. 581 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1901)