Washburn v. Cuddihy

74 Mass. 430
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedSeptember 15, 1857
StatusPublished

This text of 74 Mass. 430 (Washburn v. Cuddihy) 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
Washburn v. Cuddihy, 74 Mass. 430 (Mass. 1857).

Opinion

Thomas, J.

1. In refusing to allow the counsel to read from works of medical or veterinary practice to the jury, the presiding judge conformed to the now well settled practice in this commonwealth. Ashworth v. Kittridge, 12 Cush. 193. Commonwealth v. Wilson, 1 Gray, 337.

2. The court rightly refused to rule as matter of law that [432]*432cribbing was not unsoundness in a horse. As indications of approaching disease fall under that term, it would be difficult to say cribbiting was not unsoundness. A cribbiter will not retain his condition or be fit for constant work. Stephen’s Adventures of a Gentleman in Search of a Horse, (Amer. ed.) 243. Onslow v. Eames, 2 Stark. R. 81. Oliphant on Horses, 38, 39.

The question of unsoundness was a mixed question of law and fact, and submitted to the jury under instructions correct in principle and carefully and accurately stated.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
74 Mass. 430, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/washburn-v-cuddihy-mass-1857.