Brewer v. Hayes
| Citation | 188 N.E. 600,285 Mass. 144 |
| Parties | BREWER v. HAYES. |
| Decision Date | 09 January 1934 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Beaudreau, Judge.
Action of tort by Harry U. Brewer against James C. Hayes. Verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $1,100, and defendant brings exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
W. Isber, of Boston, for plaintiff.
E. T. Doherty, of Boston, for defendant.
This is an action of tort to recover compensation for personal injuries and property damage alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff as a result of negligence of the defendant in operating an automobile owned by him. The only defence argued is that the plaintiff's automobile was an ‘outlaw’ upon the highway because not registered as required by G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 90, § 2, in that the application did not contain ‘a statement of the name, place of residence and address of the applicant.’ It was agreed that the motor vehicle owned by the plaintiff was registered under the name ‘Eastman's Express.’ The application showed that in answer to the question ‘Is this vehicle owned by you individually?’ the answer ‘Yes' was made, that it was signed ‘Eastman's Express H. U. Brewer Prop.’ and that the mail address was ‘93 Myrtle St. Melrose’ which is the address of the plaintiff. There was evidence tending to show that the plaintiff conducted business under the name Eastman's Express, that that was a registered trade name, that the plaintiff came by the business under that trade name, and that it was a name ‘from ancient history.’ This evidence as a whole was readily susceptible of the meaning that the business was long and well known in the community by its trade name.
The burden of establishing the defence that the motor vehicle of the plaintiff was being operated upon the highway in violation of the statute respecting registration rested upon the defendant. Conroy v. Mather, 217 Mass. 91, 104 N. E. 487,52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 801;Dean v. Boston Elevated Railway, 217 Mass. 495, 497, 105 N. E. 616;Potter v. Gilmore, 282 Mass. 49, 56, 184 N. E. 373,87 A. L. R. 462. The evidence warranted a finding that the motor vehicle was registered under the trade name of the plaintiff as owner. Crompton v. Williams, 216 Mass. 184, 103 N. E. 298. The plaintiff's own name as owner of the business conducted under the trade name was plainly shown upon the application for registration and therefore was a matter of public record...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rummel v. Peters
...N.E.2d 1016. The burden of proof that the vehicle was unlawfully upon the ways of the Commonwealth is on the defendant. Brewer v. Hayes, 285 Mass. 144, 145, 188 N.E. 600;Burns v. Winchell, 305 Mass. 276, 278, 25 N.E.2d 752;LeBlanc v. Cutler Co., 305 Mass. 283, 285, 25 N.E.2d 715;Dunn v. Mer......
-
Rummel v. Peters
...Mass. 345 , 346. The burden of proof that the vehicle was unlawfully upon the ways of the Commonwealth is on the defendant. Brewer v. Hayes, 285 Mass. 144 , 145. Burns Winchell, 305 Mass. 276 , 278. LeBlanc v. Cutler Co. 305 Mass. 283 , 285. Dunn v. Merrill, 309 Mass. 174 , 175. Russell v. ......
-
Beauvais v. Springfield Inst. for Sav.
...unlawful or negligent conduct, was upon the defendant. Conroy v. Mather, 217 Mass. 91, 104 N.E. 487, 52 L.R.A.,N.S., 801; Brewer v. Hayes, 285 Mass. 144, 188 N.E. 600. The mere violation of the regulation, if proved, was not negligence per se but was only evidence of negligence, which the j......
-
Copithorn v. Boston & M.R.R.
...277 Mass. 525, 531, 179 N.E. 232, 78 A.L.R. 1021;Potter v. Gilmore, 282 Mass. 49, 56, 184 N.E. 373, 87 A.L.R. 1462;Brewer v. Hayes, 285 Mass. 144, 145, 188 N.E. 600;Grover v. Smead, 295 Mass. 11, 12, 2 N.E.2d 1012;Faria v. Veras, 298 Mass. 117, 119, 10 N.E.2d 267;Hunt Drug Co. v. Hubert, 29......