Grant v. Singer Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 01 March 1906 |
| Citation | 77 N.E. 480,190 Mass. 489 |
| Parties | GRANT v. SINGER MFG. CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
COUNSEL McMannus & McCaig and John F. Lynch, for plaintiff.
Anson M. Lyman and Loton D. Jenings, for defendant.
This is an action for an assault committed on the plaintiff by one Andrews, in taking from the plaintiff a sewing machine when she was in arrears in her payments for it. She bought the machine of the defendant. The defendant claimed that the sale was conditional, that the plaintiff had taken a written lease of the machine, and that the plaintiff had been furnished with a copy of it under Rev. Laws, c. 198, § 12. But on this point the evidence was conflicting. The plaintiff introduced evidence that on the day in question one Sexton and one Andrews came to her house in a wagon on which was painted 'Singer,' and that Andrews, 'in attempting to remove said machine, was resisted by the plaintiff, whereupon the said Andrews choked her and pushed, tearing her dress and committed the assault and battery on the plaintiff' here in question. To prove that Andrews was in the defendant's employ, the plaintiff relies on the following evidence: One of the plaintiff's witnesses testified 'that he had seen Andrewas in the Chelsea office on an average of three or four times a week.' Andrews, on being asked by the defendant if he had ever been employed by the defendant, answered: 'Not under salary, no.' He further testified, on direct examination, that he bought the plaintiff's lease for $5, 'with the understanding that if the machine was obtained the Singer Company was to take it into their store and sell it and pay him his $5 out of the proceeds, and that he received from Sexton a bill of sale of the machine, which he had turned over to the bookkeeper of the Chelsea office of the Singer Company after trouble had been made by the Grants, and which he had been informed could not now be found.' On cross-examination he admitted that, prior to the matters here complained of 'the only work he had done for the Singer Company was in the way of looking up lost machines, which numbered five or six'; that he never had paid the $5 nor had it charged to him in account, although the defendant owed him money; 'that he had accompanied Sexton on several occasions, when he had made collections and had on some occasions assisted him in taking out machines when there had been no trouble at all--that is, Sexton had gone in and talked the matter over, and had then called him to help take out the machine; that his first case for the Singer Company would date back about 12 years.' Sexton testified to the sale to Andrews, and that he accompanied him to identify the machine. He denied that any assault was committed, but he admitted that after seeing that 'there was going to be trouble in obtaining the machine he said: 'Mr. Andrews, you need not proceed any farther. I will send and replevin the sewing machine.” On cross-examination he testified to employing Andrews on several previous occasions to locate lost machines, and that he had accompanied him when he went for those machines before and since the time here in question. Madigan, Sexton's superior, was called, and testified that Sexton's instructions were to take the machine if he could get it peaceably, and, if not, to report it and he would replevy it. On cross-examination he testified 'that Sexton had men under him to do ubsiness.' In answer to the question whether Sexton could give orders to these men under him without communicating with Madigan, he answered:
The defendant asked the following rulings: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial