Ostertag v. Cahalin

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Ostertag v. Cahalin

179 N.E.2d 894, 343 Mass. 523, 1962 Mass. LEXIS 837

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedFebruary 1, 1962

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 179 N.E.2d 894 (Ostertag v. Cahalin) 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

Ostertag v. Cahalin, 179 N.E.2d 894, 343 Mass. 523, 1962 Mass. LEXIS 837 (Mass. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Wilkins, C.J.

In this motor tort action the plaintiffs, husband and wife, have been denied recovery because their car was illegally registered in the name of the wife and the husband had knowledge of the illegal registration. The accident occurred in Arlington on November 30,1958. The writ is dated March 26, 1959. Subsequently, the Legislature enacted St. 1959, c. 259, amending G. L. c. 90, § 9, entitled, “An Act providing that the failure to register or the improper registration of a motor vehicle shall not he deemed to render the vehicle a nuisance or to render any person a trespasser upon a way.” This was intended as an abolition of the rule of Dudley v. Northampton St. Ry. 202 Mass. 443. See Comeau v. Harrington, 333 Mass. 768; Thirty-Third Report of the Judicial Council (1957), Pub. Doc. 144, pp. 13-17; Thirty-Fourth Report of the Judicial Council (1958), Pub. Doc. 144, pp. 91-93. However unsound, that rule settled the substantive rights of the parties. See Bucher v. Fitchburg R.R. 131 Mass. 156,158. There is *524 no express mandate to make St. 1959, c. 259, retrospective, and no such intention appears by necessary implication. Hanscom v. Malden & Melrose Gas Light Co. 220 Mass. 1, 3. Welch v. Mayor of Taunton, ante, 485, 487-488. Hence, the amendment is confined to prospective operation.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Wilkins, C.J.

In this motor tort action the plaintiffs, husband and wife, have been denied recovery because their car was illegally registered in the name of the wife and the husband had knowledge of the illegal registration. The accident occurred in Arlington on November 30,1958. The writ is dated March 26, 1959. Subsequently, the Legislature enacted St. 1959, c. 259, amending G. L. c. 90, § 9, entitled, “An Act providing that the failure to register or the improper registration of a motor vehicle shall not he deemed to render the vehicle a nuisance or to render any person a trespasser upon a way.” This was intended as an abolition of the rule of Dudley v. Northampton St. Ry. 202 Mass. 443. See Comeau v. Harrington, 333 Mass. 768; Thirty-Third Report of the Judicial Council (1957), Pub. Doc. 144, pp. 13-17; Thirty-Fourth Report of the Judicial Council (1958), Pub. Doc. 144, pp. 91-93. However unsound, that rule settled the substantive rights of the parties. See Bucher v. Fitchburg R.R. 131 Mass. 156,158. There is *524 no express mandate to make St. 1959, c. 259, retrospective, and no such intention appears by necessary implication. Hanscom v. Malden & Melrose Gas Light Co. 220 Mass. 1, 3. Welch v. Mayor of Taunton, ante, 485, 487-488. Hence, the amendment is confined to prospective operation.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 N.E.2d 894, 343 Mass. 523, 1962 Mass. LEXIS 837, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ostertag-v-cahalin-mass-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack