Perkins v. O'Mahoney

131 Mass. 546, 1881 Mass. LEXIS 317
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided November 3, 1881·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Gray, C. J.

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] c. 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 Chapter 52 of the General Statutes reenacts the principal provisions of the statutes thereby repealed; and the provision introduced in § 7 of that chapter, giving the pilot a lien on the vessel for his fees, does not, and has never been understood to, take away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

Perkins v. O'Mahoney, 131 Mass. 546, 1881 Mass. LEXIS 317 (Mass. 1881).

131 Mass. 546 (Perkins v. O'Mahoney) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Chadwick v. Stokes
162 F.2d 132 (Third Circuit, 1947)
Donovan v. McCarty
30 N.E. 221 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1892)