Connolly v. City of Boston
Citation | 117 Mass. 64 |
Parties | Michael Connolly v. City of Boston |
Decision Date | 15 January 1875 |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Argued November 17, 1874
Suffolk. Tort for personal injuries sustained by reason of a defective highway. Trial in the Superior Court, before Bacon, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions in substance as follows:
At the trial, the counsel for the plaintiff, in opening his case, stated that the plaintiff claimed damages for personal injuries received while passing over Dover Street, in Boston, at nine o'clock, Sunday night, October 6, 1872, on account of a defect in the highway; that the defect consisted in the draw of the bridge being swung off, remaining so for more than twenty-four hours previous to the accident, without any guard or barrier; and that the plaintiff, using due care, was walking along the highway, and for want of the required barriers, walked overboard and received severe and permanent injuries.
The plaintiff then testified as follows:
The case was then stopped by the judge, who ruled that, inasmuch as the plaintiff was passing over the highway on Sunday night, and not for any work of necessity or charity, he could not recover; to which ruling the plaintiff alleged exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
A. A. Ranney & W. E. L. Dillaway, for the plaintiff.
C. F. Kittredge, for the defendant.
The plaintiff's own testimony showed that he was travelling on the Lord's day on a matter of his own secular business, and not from the pressure of any "necessity" upon himself, or "charity" towards any other person, upon any possible interpretation of those words. He cannot therefore maintain this action. Gen. Sts. c. 84, § 2. Bosworth v. Swansey, 10 Met. 363. Jones v. Andover, 10 Allen 18. Stanton v. Metropolitan Railroad, 14 Allen 485. Commonwealth v. Sampson, 97 Mass. 407. Commonwealth v. Josselyn, Ib. 411.
Exceptions overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mcneill v. Durham & C R. Co
...N. C. 522; Martin v. Wallace, 40 Ga. 52; Wallace v. Cannon, 38 Ga. 199, 95 Am. Dec. 385; Railroad v. Redd, 54 Ga. 33; Connolly v. Boston, 117 Mass. 64, 19 Am. Rep. 396; Smith v. Railroad, 120 Mass. 491, 21 Am. Rep. 538; Lyons v. Desotelle, 124 Mass. 387; Holcomb v. Danby, 51 Vt. 428. While ......
-
McNeill v. Durham & C.R. Co.
... ... Cannon, 38 Ga. 199, 95 Am. Dec. 385; Railroad v ... Redd, 54 Ga. 33; Connolly v. Boston, 117 Mass ... 64, 19 Am. Rep. 396; Smith v. Railroad, 120 Mass ... 491, 21 Am ... recognized by this court on the motion to reargue the case of ... Baltimore City Pass. Railway Co. v. Kemp and Wife, ... 61 Md. 619, 48 Am. Rep. 134, where the court says that a ... ...
-
Newcomb v. Boston Protective Dep't
...for a defect in the highway, Bosworth v. Swansey, 10 Metc. 363;Jones v. Andover, 10 Allen, 18; [16 N.E. 556]Connolly v. City of Boston, 117 Mass. 64. Nor for injuries received on a railroad, Stanton v. Railroad Co., 14 Allen, 485;Smith v. Railroad, 120 Mass. 490. See Heland v. Lowell, 3 All......
-
Newcomb v. Boston Protective Department
... ... the town for a defect in the highway, Bosworth v ... Swansey, 10 Metc. 363; Jones v. Andover, 10 ... Allen, 18; Connolly v. City of Boston, 117 Mass ... 64. [16 N.E. 556] Nor for injuries received on a railroad, ... Stanton v. Railroad Co., 14 Allen, 485; Smith v ... ...
-
Sunday law in the nineteenth century.
...cannot maintain an action for injuries sustained at a railroad crossing through the defendants' negligence); Connolly v. City of Boston, 117 Mass. 64, 65 (1875) (dismissing a tort suit for personal injury for failure to state a cause of action because the plaintiff was traveling on Sunday f......