Turley v. Boston & Maine Railroad

47 A. 261, 70 N.H. 348
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided June 5, 1900·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Parsons, J.

As there was no evidence tending to show that the shooting of the plaintiff by Saxton resulted from any fault of the defendants, was directed by them or done by their authority, or was any part of Saxton’s work of cleaning and caring for the lamps in the yard, for which he was employed and which was the sole capacity in which he represented the defendants, it cannot be found that the act of Saxton complained of, whether willful or negligent, was the defendants’ act, or within the scope of Saxton’s employment by them. McGill v. Granite Co., ante, p. 125; Rowell v. Railroad, 68 N. H. 358; Andrews v. Green, 62 N. H. 436; Wilson v. Peverly, 2 N. H. 548.

Exception overruled: judgment for the defendants.

Peaslee, J., did not sit: the others concurred.

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

Turley v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 47 A. 261, 70 N.H. 348 (N.H. 1900).

47 A. 261 (Turley v. Boston & Maine Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dalby v. Shannon & Florence
124 S.E. 186 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1924)
Richard v. Amoskeag Manufacturing Co.
109 A. 88 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1920)
Patenaude v. Boston & Maine Railroad
87 A. 249 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1913)
Grubb v. Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co.
153 S.W. 694 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1913)
Lytle v. Crescent News and Hotel Co.
66 S.W. 240 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1902)