Yeomans v. Heath
70 N.E. 1114, 185 Mass. 189, 1904 Mass. LEXIS 780
Opinion
The case as stated in the agreed statement of facts and in the plaintiffs’ declaration is within the St. 1890, c. 437, but is not within the law as amended by St. 1901, c. 459. This amendment deprived the plaintiffs of the right of recovery which they previously had. The case is covered by the decision in Wilson v. Head, 184 Mass. 515.
[190] Assuming, as we must for the purpose of this decision, that the agreed statement of facts correctly presents the case, the entry should be,
Judgment for the defendants.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Yeomans v. Heath, 70 N.E. 1114, 185 Mass. 189, 1904 Mass. LEXIS 780 (Mass. 1904).
70 N.E. 1114 (Yeomans v. Heath) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
DeLeo v. Childs
304 F. Supp. 593 (D. Massachusetts, 1969)
Pittsley v. David
11 N.E.2d 461 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1937)
Frank Kumin Co. v. Marean
186 N.E. 780 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1933)
Devine's Case
236 Mass. 588 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1921)
Moss v. Smith
155 P. 90 (California Supreme Court, 1916)
Rogers v. Nichols
71 N.E. 950 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1904)