Syndicate v. American Express Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Syndicate v. American Express Co.

102 N.E. 124, 215 Mass. 140, 1913 Mass. LEXIS 1200

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMay 24, 1913

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 102 N.E. 124 (Syndicate v. American Express 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

Syndicate v. American Express Co., 102 N.E. 124, 215 Mass. 140, 1913 Mass. LEXIS 1200 (Mass. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Rugg, C. J.

This is an action of tort to recover damages alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant. The undisputed facts showed that the defendant sent a “green horse, ” which it had owned three days, through one of the busiest parts of Boston in charge of a competent driver without any knowledge or making any effort to ascertain whether the horse was used to the sounds and sights of a great city. At the noise of the first electric car the horse shied and broke a plate glass window of the plaintiff.

The question of the defendant’s negligence rightly was submitted to the jury. The jury as men of common experience might have inferred that a green horse was one understood to be fresh from the country and entirely unwonted to the distracting conditions of Boston streets, and that the responsible agents of the defendant knew this. To take out such a horse for its first journey under the circumstances here disclosed might have been found to have been wanting in due care.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Rugg, C. J.

This is an action of tort to recover damages alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant. The undisputed facts showed that the defendant sent a “green horse, ” which it had owned three days, through one of the busiest parts of Boston in charge of a competent driver without any knowledge or making any effort to ascertain whether the horse was used to the sounds and sights of a great city. At the noise of the first electric car the horse shied and broke a plate glass window of the plaintiff.

The question of the defendant’s negligence rightly was submitted to the jury. The jury as men of common experience might have inferred that a green horse was one understood to be fresh from the country and entirely unwonted to the distracting conditions of Boston streets, and that the responsible agents of the defendant knew this. To take out such a horse for its first journey under the circumstances here disclosed might have been found to have been wanting in due care.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 N.E. 124, 215 Mass. 140, 1913 Mass. LEXIS 1200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/syndicate-v-american-express-co-mass-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack