White v. Sander

Decision Date19 May 1897
Citation47 N.E. 90,168 Mass. 296
PartiesWHITE v. SANDER (two cases).
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
COUNSEL

Lesser & Fall, for plaintiffs.

J.F. Pickering and E.S. Hill, for defendant.

OPINION

ALLEN, J.

There was no evidence that the defendant had any intention to injure the female plaintiff, or that he was aware of her condition of health. The house did not belong to her, but to her father, with whom the defendant had an altercation. The defendant's declared purpose was to injure the house, and he threw a large stone against it, in her presence. She then ran into the front room, with her little child, whereupon a large stone was willfully thrown by the defendant, which passed through one of the blinds, all of the blinds upon the front windows being closed. This greatly frightened her, though she was not struck or touched. We do not understand by the bill of exceptions that the defendant knew that she was in that room, or that he had any purpose either to hit or to frighten her, or that it was designed to present to us a case of an intentional injury to her or to her property. These elements being absent, the defendant was not responsible in damages for her fright or the consequent injury to her health. Spade v. Railroad Co., 47 N.E. 88. Under the order taking off the default, the defendant was responsible for nominal damages. Exceptions sustained.

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Wilson v. Northern Pacific Railway Company, a Corporation
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • May 12, 1915
    ... ... 113 Ky. 857, 58 L.R.A. 956, 101 Am. St. Rep. 379, 69 S.W ... 760; Birmingham Waterworks Co. v. Martin, 2 Ala.App ... 652, 56 So. 832; White v. Sander, 168 Mass. 296, 47 ... N.E. 90, 2 Am. Neg. Rep. 573; Kalen v. Terre Haute & I ... R. Co., 18 Ind.App. 202, 63 Am. St. Rep. 343, 47 ... ...
  • Perkins v. Wilcox
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 19, 1922
    ...merits of the controversy, do not rise to the dignity of even respectable conjecture. The judgment below is accordingly reversed. Reeves and White, CC., PER CURIAM: -- The foregoing opinion of Railey, C., is hereby adopted as the opinion of the court. All of the judges concur. ...
  • Hanford v. Omaha & Council Bluffs Street Railway Company
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • April 16, 1925
    ... ... Commissioners v. Coultas , 13 App. Cas. (Eng.) 222 ... (criticized in Dulieu v. White , 2 K. B. (Eng.) ... (1901) 669, [113 Neb. 432] and disapproved in Bell v ... Great Northern R. Co. , 26 L. R. (Ir.) 428); Miller ... v ...          The ... rule as announced in Spade v. Lynn & B. R. Co. , 168 ... Mass. 285, 47 N.E. 88, and White v. Sander , 168 ... Mass. 296, 47 N.E. 90, was frankly stated to be "not put ... as a logical deduction from the general [113 Neb. 437] ... principles of ... ...
  • Hanford v. Omaha & C. B. St. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • April 16, 1925
    ...The rule as announced in Spade v. Lynn & B. R. Co., 168 Mass. 285, 47 N. E. 88, 38 L. R. A. 512, 60 Am. St. Rep. 393, and White v. Sander, 168 Mass. 296, 47 N. E. 90, was frankly stated to be “not put as a logical deduction from the general principles of liability in tort, but as a limitati......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT