O'Halleron v. Miller
| Decision Date | 25 February 1931 |
| Citation | 274 Mass. 508,175 N.E. 94 |
| Parties | O'HALLERON v. MILLER. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; J. Walsh, Judge.
Action by Francis O'Halleron against Bessie Miller. Directed verdict in favor of defendant, and plaintiff brings exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
C. D. Driscoll, of Boston, for plaintiff.
R. Gallagher and N. F. Fermoyle, both of Boston, for defendant.
This is an action of tort. The plaintiff seeks to recover compensation for personal injuries received by him through a collision between an automobile in which he was riding on a public way with an automobile of the defendant. The trial judge, pursuant to motion, directed a verdict in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff excepted. One ground set forth in the motion was that the motor to interrogatories and to depositions. Of a trespasser upon the highway and the plaintiff, knowing that it was not being operated with the number plates of the owner, is not entitled to recover. Testimony of the plaintiff was to the effect that he was employed by the Newton Auto Sales, Inc.; that the motor vehicle in which he was riding bore the plates of his employer and was owned by one Turner, a dealer in automobiles; that he had driven the motor vehicle to the house of one Quinn, to whom he was trying to sell it and by whom, at the time of the accident on a Sunday, it was being driven. The defendant contends that the plaintiff was knowingly in a car then being operated in violation of G. L. c. 90, § 9, which forbids the operation upon any way of a motor vehicle not licensed in accord with chapter 90, and carrying its register number.
The car in which the plaintiff was riding bore a number plate issued to the Newton Auto Sales, Inc. That company did not own the car. Its number plate could be used properly upon the car to give it a legitimate standing upon a way only if the company at the time of this accident was in the business of repairing motor vehicles or was a manufacturer or dealer in them within the provisions of G. L. c. 90, § 5, St. 1923, c. 464, § 2, and was in control of the car. McDonald v. Dundon, 242 Mass. 229, 136 N. E. 264, 26 A. L. R. 1243;G. L. c. 90, §§ 5, 6, 9, as then amended. The bill of exceptions is bare of evidence to show the relations between Turner, the owner, and the Newton Auto Sales, Inc., or that the Newton Auto Sales, Inc., was then a dealer in or manufacturer of motor vehicles or that it held the car for repair or for purposes of sale. All that appears is that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Liddell v. Middlesex Motor Co.
...he bought it. McDonald v. Dundon, 242 Mass. 229, 136 N. E. 264, 26 A. L. R. 1243;Fulton v. Kaler (Mass.) 170 N. E. 818. See O'Halleron v. Miller (Mass.) 175 N. E. 94. A motor vehicle registered under G. L. c. 90, § 2, in the name of the owner, when sold on a contract of conditional sale may......
-
Ducharme v. Coe Motors, Inc.
...The refusal of the trial judge to give the ruling requested was right. No exception was saved to the charge. The case of O'Halleron v. Miller (Mass.) 175 N. E. 94, is distinguishable in its facts. Exceptions ...
-
Kenner v. Century Indem. Co.
...enacted long after the original enactment of § 5, the dealer or repair man is required to furnish. We see nothing in O'Halleron v. Miller, 274 Mass. 508, 175 N.E. 94;Liddell v. Middlesex Motor Co., 275 Mass. 346, 175 N.E. 737;Liddell v. Standard Accident Ins. Co., 283 Mass. 340, 187 N.E. 39......
- White v. Franklin Cnty.