Frost v. Domestic Sewing Machine Co.

Decision Date28 November 1882
Citation133 Mass. 563
PartiesSarah V. Frost v. Domestic Sewing Machine Company
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Suffolk. Tort, in two counts, for assault and battery and false imprisonment by the defendant's agents and servants. Trial in the Superior Court, before Rockwell, J who reported the case for the determination of this court, in substance as follows:

The plaintiff testified that, in December 1880, her husband received a sewing machine, under a bargain for the sale thereof, on certain conditions contained in an agreement between him and the defendant, signed by him, and witnessed by one Dill, who in said agreement represented himself as agent for the defendant, and by whose solicitations the agreement was made. The plaintiff also put in evidence a replevin writ, issued from the office of Joseph P. Silsby, an attorney at law, in favor of this defendant, against E. O. W Frost, the husband of the plaintiff, for the replevin of the machine received by him. Said writ was dated May 12, 1881 and the officer's return thereon showed that he, by virtue thereof, replevied the machine, which was receipted for on the writ by Silsby, as attorney for this defendant. The replevin bond was signed, as principal, by this defendant by "J. A. Goodwin, manager." Said writ was duly entered in court, went to trial and judgment, an appeal was taken by this defendant to the Superior Court, the bond to prosecute the appeal was signed by and in behalf of this defendant, as principal, by its attorney of record, said Silsby, and the appeal was entered in the Superior Court, where it was finally disposed of by agreement. The plaintiff also testified to the assault and battery and false imprisonment by said Silsby, on the date of, and at the time of service of, said replevin writ; and that, at the trial of the replevin suit, said Dill testified that he was the duly authorized agent of this defendant, and was, as such, authorized to enter into and make agreements for the sale of machines.

The plaintiff offered to prove, that, at the trial of the replevin suit, said Goodwin was present, and testified that he was the manager and agent of this defendant for Massachusetts, and also heard the testimony of Dill, without making any denial thereof; that, a few days prior to the suing out of the replevin writ by Silsby, Goodwin, as general manager and agent for this defendant, employed the law firm of Richardson and Hale to sue out a writ of replevin for said machine from the plaintiff's husband; that the replevin writ was placed in the hands...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Lydia E. Pinkham Med. Co. v. Gove
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • July 8, 1937
    ...have no doubt of the authority of the president to bring it. Bristol County Savings Bank v. Keavy, 128 Mass. 298, 302;Frost v. Domestic Sewing Machine Co., 133 Mass. 563;Trustees of Smith Charities v. Connolly, 157 Mass. 272, 275, 31 N.E. 1058;Alden Bros. Co. v. Dunn, 264 Mass. 355, 361, 16......
  • McNeal v. Millar
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • April 5, 1920
    ...593; 58 S.E. 608. A corporation may be held liable for assault, false imprisonment or malicious prosecution. 32 N.J.L. 328; 37 Ala. 560; 133 Mass. 563; 130 Id. 443; 93 Cal. 562; N.Y. 77. See also as to liability of corporations for criminal acts of its agents in the course of their employme......
  • Image and Sound Service Corp. v. Altec Service Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • December 28, 1956
    ...the last named capacity he has under Massachusetts law the power to institute actions in the name of the corporation. Frost v. Domestic Sewing Machine Co., 133 Mass. 563; Trustees of Smith Charities v. Connolly, 157 Mass. 272, 31 N.E. 1058; Lydia E. Pinkham Medicine Co. v. Gove, 298 Mass. 5......
  • Little Rock Traction & Electric Company v. Walker
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • March 19, 1898
    ...or malicious prosecution. 32 N.J.L. 328; 37 Ala. 560; 32 N.J.L. 334; 130 Mass. 443; 15 Nev. 167; Cook, Corp. Law (2 Ed.), § 698; 133 Mass. 563; 47 N.Y. 274; 3 923; 93 Cal. 562; 90 N.Y. 77. BUNN C. J. WOOD, J., dissents. OPINION BUNN, C. J. This is a suit for malicious prosecution by Albert ......
  • 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