Cole v. Groves
| Decision Date | 12 March 1883 |
| Citation | 134 Mass. 471 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | Willie I. Cole v. Charles J. Groves & another |
Suffolk. Tort. Writ dated September 19, 1881. The declaration contained three counts. The first count alleged that, on or about August 7, 1880, one Henry G. Cole played at cards in a certain building in Boston, and lost by said playing at cards the sum of $ 1060, and paid to the defendants said sum; that said Cole neglected to, and did not, within three months after said loss, without covin or collusion, prosecute the defendants with effect for said money lost as aforesaid; and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover treble the value of the money so lost. The second and third counts were similar, except that they respectively alleged that the defendants were the owners, and the tenants and occupants, of the building where the money was so lost. The answer contained a general denial, and also the following: "And the defendants further answering say that the cause of action, the alleged offence mentioned in the plaintiff's declaration, was not committed within one year before the suing out of the plaintiff's writ, wherefore he cannot maintain his said action."
Trial in the Superior Court, before Mason, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, which, after stating that the pleadings formed part thereof, was, in substance, as follows:
The plaintiff introduced evidence to show that, on August 6 and 7, 1880, Henry G. Cole lost to the defendants, by playing at cards, the sum of $ 1060.41. After the plaintiff had introduced his testimony, and all evidence in the case had been put in, the defendants requested the judge to rule that the action could not be maintained, because it was not begun within one year after the date of the loss of said money, as required by the Gen. Sts. c. 155, § 20. The judge refused so to rule. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; and the defendants alleged exceptions.
Exceptions sustained.
A Russ, for the defendants.
H. E Swasey & G. R. Swasey, for the plaintiff.
OPINION
We have no doubt that § 1 of the Gen. Sts. c. 85 (Pub. Sts. c. 99, § 1,) under which this action is brought, so far as it authorizes a third person to recover three times the sum of money or value of goods lost by gaming, is a penal statute; or that the Gen. Sts. c. 155, § 20, (Pub. Sts. c. 197, § 4,) apply to this action. Read...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pittsley v. David
...the damage caused by the violation. It was remedial, and not penal (Reed v. Northfield, 13 Pick. 94, 101, 102, 23 Am.Dec. 662;Cole v. Groves, 134 Mass. 471, 472;Wall v. Metropolitan Stock Exchange, 168 Mass. 282, 46 N.E. 1062;Wilson v. Head, 184 Mass. 515, 519, 69 N.E. 317), although the sa......
-
Casey v. St. Louis Transit Company
...the precise penalty fixed by the statute must be sued for. Hyde v. Cogan, 2 Doug. 699, 705, 706; Read v. Stewart, 129 Mass. 410; Cole v. Groves, 134 Mass. 471; King v. Railroad, 98 Mo. 239; Philpot Railroad, 85 Mo. 168; Proctor v. Railroad, 64 Mo. 112; Sarazin v. Railroad, 153 Mo. 485. H. A......
-
Sullivan v. Associated Billposters and Distributors
...far as the statute authorizes a third person, not the loser, to recover treble damages or the money lost, the statute is penal. Cole v. Groves, 134 Mass. 471; Aylsworth v. Curtis, 19 R. I. 517, 520, 34 A. 1109, 33 L. R. A. 110, 61 Am. St. Rep. Is the fact that the statute is remedial and no......
-
Cummings v. Bd. of Ed. Okla. City
...Bones v. Booth, , W. Bl. 1226; Brandon v. Pate, 2 H. Bl. 308; Grace v. M'Elroy, 1 Allen 563; Read v. Stewart, 129 Mass. 407, 410; Cole v. Graves, 134 Mass. 471. As said by Mr. Justice Ashhurst in the King's Bench, and repeated by Mr. Justice Wilde in the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachuse......