Jones v. City of Boston

• Decision Date: 31 December 1907
• Parties: JONES v. CITY OF BOSTON.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

197 Mass. 66

83 N.E. 309

JONES v. CITY OF BOSTON.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

December 31, 1907

COUNSEL

I. R. Clark and G. F. Ordway, for plaintiff.

Samuel M. Child, for defendants.

OPINION

MORTON J.

This is an action for personal injuries, and was tried, pursuant to an order of the court, duly excepted to by the defendant city, with another action for the same injuries against the contractors, Collins & Ham. There was a verdict for the plaintiff in each case and exceptions were taken by the defendants in each case. Those taken by Collins & Ham have not been prosecuted and those taken by the city are the only ones before us. The case against Collins & Ham was before this court, and is reported in 177 Mass. 444, 59 N.E 64. Subsequently the court, subject to the city's objection and exception, ordered the two cases to be tried together. A trial was had and a verdict was directed for the defendants in each case. The plaintiff took exceptions which were sustained by the court. The case is reported in 188 Mass. 53, 74 N.E. 295.

The exceptions now before us are to the order directing the two cases to be tried together, to the refusal of the court to direct a verdict for the defendant and to the admission of certain evidence.

Whether the two cases should be tried together or separately was a matter relating to the conduct of the business before the court, and was entirely within the discretion of the presiding justice. Burt v. Wigglesworth, 117 Mass 302; Springfield v. Sleeper, 115 Mass. 587; Witherlee v. Ocean Ins. Co., 24 Pick. 67. If the order directing them to be tried together is subject to revision here, then we see nothing improper in the exercise of his discretion by the presiding justice. The two cases depended on the same state of facts and the order to try them together tended to economy of time and money. The rights of the defendant were carefully guarded in respect to matters affecting Jones and Collins but not affecting the defendant city. There is nothing in the nature of things to prevent a case against a municipality or corporation from being tried with a case for the same injuries against private individuals.

In the opinion pronounced when the case was here before, it was said 'the question for trial in the case against the city was whether the defendant city had used reasonable care and diligence to protect the traveling public against the defect in...