
Reports of Cases in Law and Equity Determined by the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (Volume 51)
Paperback
Currently unavailable to order
ISBN10: 1153980983
ISBN13: 9781153980982
Publisher: General Books
Pages: 412
Weight: 1.32
Height: 0.91 Width: 9.01 Depth: 5.98
Language: English
ISBN13: 9781153980982
Publisher: General Books
Pages: 412
Weight: 1.32
Height: 0.91 Width: 9.01 Depth: 5.98
Language: English
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1866 Excerpt: ...it would not be enough that the horse was thus put into the custody of Crommett; nor would it be enough for him to take hold of the reins. It would be the duty of Crommett to guard against the horse's getting away by holding on to the reins with due diligence; and if he was negligent in this particular, and the son was at the time in the employ of the father as his servant, and Crommett was employed by the son while in the regular discharge of his father's business, the father would be responsible for Crommett's negligence. The verdict was for the plaintiff, and the defendant excepted. J. Baker, for defendant. 1. The falling of the icicles was an inevitable accident, or Bigelow r. Eeed. at least so unusual an occurrence, that the defendant was not responsible for it; and, if this cause contributed to the injury, the plaintiff cannot recover. 1 Hilliard on Torts, 124, 129; Hixon v. Lowell, 13 Gray, 59; 2 Cush., 300; 13 Met., 55. 2. The plaintiff was in the street for an unlawful purpose; for an unreasonable time; and obstructing the street. In such cases, he cannot recover. 1 Hil. on Torts, 171. 3. The plaintiff was not in the use of ordinary care; and the eleventh and twelfth requested instructions should have been given. 4. The presiding Judge undertook to instruct the jury what state of facts would constitute ordinary care, on the part of the defendant's servant in holding the horse. But that was a question exclusively for the jury. J. M. Meserve, for plaintiff. The opinion of the Court was drawn up by Kent, J.--The case, most strongly stated for the defendant, so far as the rulings and refusals of the Judge presiding in relation to the fourth and fifth requests, are in question, is this: --The defendant's son and servant was sent by him to a store in Augu...