Cummings v. Moore

CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Writing for the CourtQUA
Citation25 N.E.2d 221,305 Mass. 105
Decision Date01 February 1940
PartiesCUMMINGS v. MOORE et al.

305 Mass. 105
25 N.E.2d 221

CUMMINGS
v.
MOORE et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Bristol.

Feb. 1, 1940.


Exceptions from Superior Court, Bristol County; J. L. Hurley, Judge.

Action by Bertha I. Cummings against Annie C. Moore and another for alleged conversion and damages to household articles. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings exceptions.

Exceptions overruled.

[25 N.E.2d 221]

M. H. T. McGregor and J. M. McGregor, both of Taunton, for plaintiff.

No argument nor brief for defendant.


QUA, Justice.

The declaration is in two counts. The first count is for conversion of various household articles. The second count alleges that, on or about October 4, 1935, the defendants unlawfully entered the plaintiff's apartment in Taunton, removed her household goods and placed them in a storehouse, and that the goods were damaged and broken by the unskillful and negligent manner in which they were placed there. The exceptions are based solely upon the exclusion of evidence offered by the plaintiff.

The judge found that the plaintiff had not sustained the burden of proving that the defendants or either of them wrongfully took or converted the plaintiff's property; that although the defendant Laffan, as agent of the defendant Moore, did remove the plaintiff's property from the apartment, he placed it in a proper storage warehouse for the benefit of the plaintiff; that he was not negligent in the handling or storage thereof; that the property was not damaged or lost; and that the plaintiff suffered no injury.

[25 N.E.2d 222]

The bill of exceptions states as facts that, prior to June 11, 1935, the plaintiff had occupied the premises at a rental of $10 per month; that at that time the property was sold to a co-operative bank; that the bank never gave the plaintiff notice to vacate; that the property was deeded by the bank to the defendant Moore by deed dated August 8, 1935, and recorded September 10, 1935; and that the first knowledge the plaintiff had of this defendant having acquired the property was when the plaintiff received on October 1 a notice from this defendant ‘to make arrangements before October 2, 1935 to vacate the premises.’ The date of the removal of the plaintiff's goods does not appear, except from the allegation in the second count of the declaration and from the fact that the writ was dated October 15, 1935.

The plaintiff called as a witness an attorney at law, who testified that she had been the plaintiff's attorney. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Commonwealth v. Boris
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • December 1, 1944
    ...Co. 220 Mass. 593 , 599. Commonwealth v. Russ, 232 Mass. 58 , 59. Coghlan v. White, 236 Mass. 165 , 168-169. Cummings v. Moore, 305 Mass. 105 , 107. The burden is always upon the excepting party to set out in his bill of exceptions all the material evidence upon which the ruling of which he......
  • Runels v. Lowell Sun Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • June 30, 1945
    ...v. Boston Elevated Railway, 215 Mass. 318, 102 N.E. 417;Coghlan v. White, 236 Mass. 165, 168, 128 N.E. 33;Cummings v. Moore, 305 Mass. 105, 107, 25 N.E.2d 221;Commonwealth v. Hoff, 315 Mass. 551, 553, 53 N.E.2d 680. No such error is shown on this record. 5. One Murphy, a real estate expert,......
  • Commonwealth v. Boris
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • December 1, 1944
    ...N.E. 474;Commonwealth v. Russ, 232 Mass. 58, 59, 122 N.E. 176;Coghlan v. White, 236 Mass. 165, 168, 169, 128 N.E. 33;Cummings v. Moore, 305 Mass. 105, 107, 25 N.E.2d 221. The burden is always upon the excepting party to set out in his bill of exceptions all the material evidence upon which ......
  • Runels v. Lowell Sun Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • June 30, 1945
    ...9 Cush. 508, 511. Slotofski v. Boston Elevated Railway, 215 Mass. 318 . Coghlan v. White, 236 Mass. 165 , 168. Cummings v. Moore, 305 Mass. 105 , 107. Commonwealth v. Hoff, 315 Mass. 551, 553. No such error is shown on this record. [1] 5. One Murphy, a real estate expert, called by the defe......
4 cases
  • Commonwealth v. Boris
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • December 1, 1944
    ...Co. 220 Mass. 593 , 599. Commonwealth v. Russ, 232 Mass. 58 , 59. Coghlan v. White, 236 Mass. 165 , 168-169. Cummings v. Moore, 305 Mass. 105 , 107. The burden is always upon the excepting party to set out in his bill of exceptions all the material evidence upon which the ruling of which he......
  • Runels v. Lowell Sun Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • June 30, 1945
    ...v. Boston Elevated Railway, 215 Mass. 318, 102 N.E. 417;Coghlan v. White, 236 Mass. 165, 168, 128 N.E. 33;Cummings v. Moore, 305 Mass. 105, 107, 25 N.E.2d 221;Commonwealth v. Hoff, 315 Mass. 551, 553, 53 N.E.2d 680. No such error is shown on this record. 5. One Murphy, a real estate expert,......
  • Commonwealth v. Boris
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • December 1, 1944
    ...N.E. 474;Commonwealth v. Russ, 232 Mass. 58, 59, 122 N.E. 176;Coghlan v. White, 236 Mass. 165, 168, 169, 128 N.E. 33;Cummings v. Moore, 305 Mass. 105, 107, 25 N.E.2d 221. The burden is always upon the excepting party to set out in his bill of exceptions all the material evidence upon which ......
  • Runels v. Lowell Sun Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • June 30, 1945
    ...9 Cush. 508, 511. Slotofski v. Boston Elevated Railway, 215 Mass. 318 . Coghlan v. White, 236 Mass. 165 , 168. Cummings v. Moore, 305 Mass. 105 , 107. Commonwealth v. Hoff, 315 Mass. 551, 553. No such error is shown on this record. [1] 5. One Murphy, a real estate expert, called by the defe......

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