Sullivan v. Lowell & Dracut Street Railway Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Sullivan v. Lowell & Dracut Street Railway Co.

39 N.E. 185, 162 Mass. 536, 1895 Mass. LEXIS 325

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJanuary 2, 1895

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 39 N.E. 185 (Sullivan v. Lowell & Dracut Street Railway Co.) 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

Sullivan v. Lowell & Dracut Street Railway Co., 39 N.E. 185, 162 Mass. 536, 1895 Mass. LEXIS 325 (Mass. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

Holmes, J.

The evidence objected' to, whether admissible or not, was confined to the question of damages by the express and repeated directions of the judge. It was not let in generally, as in Ellis v. Short, 21 Pick. 142, Crowell v. Porter, 106 Mass. 80, and Maguire v. Middlesex Railroad, 115 Mass. 239. In Brown v. Cummings, 7 Allen, 507, the evidence was let in generally, and naturally would affect the amount of damages found by the jury. See Anthony v. Travis, 148 Mass. 53, 59. Ordinarily, it must be assumed that the jury follow the instructions which they receive. Commonwealth v. Ham, 150 Mass. 122. And although this assumption may not prevent the granting of a new trial when the inevitable effect of inadmissible evidence is to prejudice the objecting party’s whole case and testimony, as in Miller v. Curtis, 158 Mass. 127, we do not regard such an effect as likely here. Evidence of disturbed marital relations at particular times had no bearing on the questions whether the plaintiff had lost his wife’s services, or the defendant had been negligent.

Fxceptions overruled.

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

Holmes, J.

The evidence objected' to, whether admissible or not, was confined to the question of damages by the express and repeated directions of the judge. It was not let in generally, as in Ellis v. Short, 21 Pick. 142, Crowell v. Porter, 106 Mass. 80, and Maguire v. Middlesex Railroad, 115 Mass. 239. In Brown v. Cummings, 7 Allen, 507, the evidence was let in generally, and naturally would affect the amount of damages found by the jury. See Anthony v. Travis, 148 Mass. 53, 59. Ordinarily, it must be assumed that the jury follow the instructions which they receive. Commonwealth v. Ham, 150 Mass. 122. And although this assumption may not prevent the granting of a new trial when the inevitable effect of inadmissible evidence is to prejudice the objecting party’s whole case and testimony, as in Miller v. Curtis, 158 Mass. 127, we do not regard such an effect as likely here. Evidence of disturbed marital relations at particular times had no bearing on the questions whether the plaintiff had lost his wife’s services, or the defendant had been negligent.

Fxceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 N.E. 185, 162 Mass. 536, 1895 Mass. LEXIS 325, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sullivan-v-lowell-dracut-street-railway-co-mass-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack