Priest v. Nichols

116 Mass. 401, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 128
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedDecember 18, 1874
StatusPublished
Cited by41 cases

This text of 116 Mass. 401 (Priest v. Nichols) 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
Priest v. Nichols, 116 Mass. 401, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 128 (Mass. 1874).

Opinion

Endicott, J.

There was evidence upon which this case could properly be submitted to the jury. The plaintiffs occupied as tenants the lower floor of a building belonging to the defendants. The defendants occupied the floor above. There was a pipe leading through the plaintiffs’ premises which conveyed the waste water and material from the manufactory, sinks and water closet of the defendants to the sewer below. This pipe was alleged to be in charge of the defendants, and evidence was offered that they had so treated it, and had, from time to time, upon notice, made repairs upon it. But they negligently suffered it to be out of repair, whereby the water damaged 'the goods of the plaintiffs. It was a question of fact for the jury, whether the pipe was in charge of the defendants, and was out of repair through their negligence. The rule that "a landlord is not bound to keep the premises of his tenant in repair, and therefore cannot be held responsible for negligence, if out of repair, has no application to the facts presented in this case.

The defendants also had an engine on their premises, and the plaintiffs contended that by their negligent management of the engine, and their negligence in not keeping its pipes and pumps in repair, they leaked, and caused the water to come down and damage their goods. Evidence was offered on these points, and it was for the jury to decide.

The rulings of the presiding judge were carefully stated, and are not open to exception. Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

Derman Rug Co. Inc. v. Ruderman
350 N.E.2d 727 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1976)
2310 Madison Avenue, Inc. v. Allied Bedding Manufacturing Co.
121 A.2d 203 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1956)
Getz v. Freed
105 A.2d 102 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1954)
Greenway Wood Heel Co. v. John Shea Co.
46 N.E.2d 746 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1943)
Gottesman & Co. v. Portland Terminal Co.
27 A.2d 394 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1942)
Burke v. Zatoonian
36 N.E.2d 385 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1941)
Boise Street Car Co. v. Van Avery
103 P.2d 1107 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1940)
Beauvais v. Springfield Institution for Savings
20 N.E.2d 957 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1939)
Malden Knitting Mills v. United States Rubber Co.
16 N.E.2d 707 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1938)
Rogers v. Dudley Realty Corp.
16 N.E.2d 244 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1938)
McAllister v. Pennsylvania Railroad
187 A. 415 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1936)
Moss v. Grove Hall Savings Bank
195 N.E. 762 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1935)
Arling v. Zeitz
269 Ill. App. 562 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1933)
Devine v. Lyman
169 N.E. 908 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1930)
Kendall v. Tashjian
155 N.E. 4 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1927)
Osterling v. Frick
131 A. 250 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1925)
Longbotham v. Takeoka
239 P. 105 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1925)
Pignatario v. Meyers
123 A. 263 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1924)
Conahan v. Fisher
124 N.E. 13 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1919)
Martindale Clothing Co. v. Spokane & Eastern Trust Co.
79 Wash. 643 (Washington Supreme Court, 1914)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
116 Mass. 401, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/priest-v-nichols-mass-1874.