Smith v. Milne

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Smith v. Milne

158 N.E. 268, 262 Mass. 113, 1928 Mass. LEXIS 1412

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJanuary 5, 1928

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 158 N.E. 268 (Smith v. Milne) 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

Smith v. Milne, 158 N.E. 268, 262 Mass. 113, 1928 Mass. LEXIS 1412 (Mass. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Carroll, J.

These two actions of tort were tried together. The action against Milne, an attorney at law, was brought to recover damages for bringing an ejectment proceeding against Smith, the plaintiff in this action, without authority from Josephine A. Slack, the plaintiff named in the ejectment proceedings, with malice and without probable cause. The action against Guttentag, a constable, was in substance that he served the writ in the ejectment case maliciously and without authority. In each action the trial judge found for the defendant. In the Appellate Division of the Municipal Court of the City of Boston the report was dismissed. The plaintiff appealed.

There was evidence from one Folger, who was an agent of Mrs. Slack and in charge of the property, that he was directed by her to eject Mrs. Smith from the premises and “to hire a lawyer”; that he told Guttentag “to serve on Mrs. Smith fourteen days notice and if she don’t pay to evict her”; “that later Mr. Guttentag informed him that he had engaged counsel to bring ejectment proceedings against Mrs. Smith.” The judge was fully warranted on this evidence in finding that the ejectment proceedings were brought with the authority of Mrs. Slack. The agency of Folger could be shown by his testimony. Haney v. Donnelly, 12 Gray, 361, 362. In each case the order dismissing the report is affirmed. °

So ordered.

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

Carroll, J.

These two actions of tort were tried together. The action against Milne, an attorney at law, was brought to recover damages for bringing an ejectment proceeding against Smith, the plaintiff in this action, without authority from Josephine A. Slack, the plaintiff named in the ejectment proceedings, with malice and without probable cause. The action against Guttentag, a constable, was in substance that he served the writ in the ejectment case maliciously and without authority. In each action the trial judge found for the defendant. In the Appellate Division of the Municipal Court of the City of Boston the report was dismissed. The plaintiff appealed.

There was evidence from one Folger, who was an agent of Mrs. Slack and in charge of the property, that he was directed by her to eject Mrs. Smith from the premises and “to hire a lawyer”; that he told Guttentag “to serve on Mrs. Smith fourteen days notice and if she don’t pay to evict her”; “that later Mr. Guttentag informed him that he had engaged counsel to bring ejectment proceedings against Mrs. Smith.” The judge was fully warranted on this evidence in finding that the ejectment proceedings were brought with the authority of Mrs. Slack. The agency of Folger could be shown by his testimony. Haney v. Donnelly, 12 Gray, 361, 362. In each case the order dismissing the report is affirmed. °

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 N.E. 268, 262 Mass. 113, 1928 Mass. LEXIS 1412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-milne-mass-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack