Perkins v. O'Mahoney
This text of 131 Mass. 546 (Perkins v. O'Mahoney) 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
By the law of the Commonwealth for three quarters of a century before the passage of the General Statutes, pilots entitled by statute to fees for services offered and refused might recover those fees by action against the master. St. 1783, [547]*547c. 13. Rev. Sts. c. 32. Smith v. Swift, 8 Met. 329. Martin v. Hilton, 9 Met. 371. Winslow v. Prince, 6 Cush. 368. Hunt v. Carlisle, 1 Gray, 257. Chapter 52 of the General Statutes reenacts the principal provisions of the statutes thereby repealed; and the provision introduced in § 7 of that chapter, giving the pilot a lien on the vessel for his fees, does not, and has never been understood to, take away his right of action against the master therefor. Gen. Sts. c. 52, § 12. St. 1862, c. 176, schedule, els. 3, 4, 5, 10. Chandler v. Doody, 101 Mass. 267. Josselyn v. Gleason, 103 Mass. 237. Perkins v. Buckley, 120 Mass. 3. Wilson v. Gray, 127 Mass. 98. The America, 1 Lowell, 176.
The necessity imposed by statute to take a pilot for the security of life and property brings the case within the exception in the Lord’s day act. Gen. Sts. c. 84, §§ 1, 2.
Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
131 Mass. 546, 1881 Mass. LEXIS 317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perkins-v-omahoney-mass-1881.