Rolli v. Converse
| Decision Date | 26 May 1917 |
| Parties | ROLLI v. CONVERSE (three cases). |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Plymouth County.
Consolidated actions by Monte Rolli and others against Harry E. Converse. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs except. Exceptions of plaintiff named sustained, and exceptions of other plaintiffs overruled.
An unregistered automobile is a trespasser upon the public street, and a person riding therein has no rights against other travelers except to be protected from reckless or willful injury.
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. ss 1515, 1516.]
Where a partnership owning a registered automobile truck was dissolved and its property vested in a new firm of which one of the former partners was a member, the latter firm could not recover for injuries from collision of truck with another car, where the truck had not been reregistered as required by St. 1909, c. 534, s 2, amended by St. 1912, c. 400, s 1, in cases of change in ownership.
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. ss 1515, 1516.]
Where evidence showed that one plaintiff did not know that automobile truck in which he was riding when injured by collision was not legally registered, he could recover against the owner of the other car for his negligence, although recovery is denied other plaintiffs.
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. ss 1515, 1516.]
H. V. Cunningham and Blodgett, Jones, Burnham & Bingham, all of Boston, and Nutter & King, of Brockton, for plaintiffs.
Sawyer, Hardy, Stone & Morrison, of Boston, for defendant.
These actions were tried together. The individual plaintiffs seek to recover damages for personal injuries received by them by reason of a collision between a Buick automobile delivery truck in which they were riding, and which was owned by the joint plaintiffs, and a Packard touring car owned by the defendant; the joint plaintiffs seek to recover damages for injury to their Buick truck growing out of the collision.
The accident occurred on June 28, 1915, upon a highway in Canton, in this commonwealth. The Buick truck was being operated by a chauffeur in the employ of Rolli Brothers. The judge of the superior court, before whom the cases were tried, at the close of the evidence for the plaintiffs, ruled that the Buick truck ‘was on the highway without legal registration and on that ground alone directed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant in each of the three cases.’ Verdicts were returned in accordance with this ruling, and the plaintiffs severally excepted.
The facts, so far as they have any bearing upon the issues presented by the bill of exceptions, are not in dispute. Before February, 1915, the plaintiff Geniseo Rolli and Joseph Benecchi were in the bakery business as co-partners under the firm name of Rolli & Benecchi. This partnership owned the Buick truck. It was registered for the year 1915 in the firm name and was used in the partnership business. In February, 1915, Benecchi assigned his interest in the partnership, including his interest in the Buick truck, to Mario Rolli, a brother of Geniseo, and thereafter Mario and Geniseo Rolli carried on the bakery business as co-partners under the firm name of Rolli Brothers, and owned and used the truck in the business until the date of the accident, June 28, 1915. No new or additional registration of the truck was taken out after it had been registered in the name of Rolli & Benecchi, before the accident.
The statute relative to motor vehicles (St. 1909, c. 534, § 2, St. 1912, c. 400, § 1) provides that the application for registration must contain the name, place of residence and address of the applicant, together with such further information as the commission may require, and also a description of the motor vehicle. The statute further provides:
‘Upon the transfer of ownership of any motor vehicle its registration shall expire, and the person in whose name such vehicle is registered shall forthwith return the certificate of registration to the commission with a written notice containing the date of such transfer of ownership, and the name, place of residence and address of the new owner.’
It is also provided (section 9) that no motor vehicle shall be operated unless registered in accordance with the provisions of the act.
[1] Because of the dangers and harm to the public which the statute relative to the registration of motor vehicles was intended to prevent, the Legislature has enacted that an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Opinion of the Justices
...E. 923, 924;Shufelt v. McCartin, 235 Mass. 122, 125, 126 N. E. 362;Fairbanks v. Kemp, 226 mass. 75, 78, 115 N. E. 240;Rolli v. Converse, 227 Mass. 162, 164, 116 N. E. 507. The dominant aim of the statute is to regulate the use of motor vehicles upon highways. That is a proper field for the ......
-
Meloon v. Davis, 1558.
... ... 616; Gould v. Elder, 219 Mass ... 396, 107 N.E. 59; Koonovsky v. Quellette, 226 Mass ... 474, 116 N.E. 243, Ann. Cas. 1918B, 1146; Rolli v ... Converse, 227 Mass. 162, 116 N.E. 507 ... In ... Parker v. Latner, supra, the leading case in Maine on the ... subject, the ... ...
-
Potter v. Gilmore
...Street Railway Co., 213 Mass. 137, 138, 99 N. E. 960;Holden v. McGillicuddy, 215 Mass. 563, 565, 102 N. E. 923;Rolli v. Converse, 227 Mass. 162, 164, 116 N. E. 507;Norcross v. B. L. Roberts Co., 239 Mass. 596, 597, 132 N. E. 399; and Cook v. Crowell, 273 Mass. 356, 358, 173 N. E. 587. In Du......
-
In re Justices
...E. 923, 924;Shufelt v. McCartin, 235 Mass. 122, 125, 126 N. E. 362;Fairbanks v. Kemp, 226 Mass. 75, 78, 115 N. E. 240;Rolli v. Converse, 227 Mass. 162, 164, 116 N. E. 507. The dominant aim of the statute is to regulate the use of motor vehicles upon highways. That is a proper field for the ......