Sullivan v. Lowell & D. St. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 02 January 1895
• Citation: 39 N.E. 185,162 Mass. 536
• Parties: SULLIVAN v. LOWELL & D. ST. RY. CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

162 Mass. 536

39 N.E. 185

SULLIVAN v. LOWELL & D. ST. RY. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

January 2, 1895

COUNSEL

Nathan D. Pratt, for plaintiff.

George F. Richardson, George R. Richardson, and Daniel M. Richardson, for defendant.

OPINION

HOLMES, J.

The evidence objected to, whether admissible or not, was confined to the question of damages by the express and repeated directions of the judge. It was not let in generally, as in Ellis v. Short, 21 Pick. 142; Crowell v. Porter, 106 Mass. 80; and Maguire v. Railroad, 115 Mass. 239. In Brown v. Cummings, 7 Allen, 507, the evidence was let in generally, and naturally would affect the amount of damages found by the jury. See Anthony v. Travis, 148 Mass. 53, 59, 19 N.E. 8. Ordinarily, it must be assumed that the jury follow the instructions which they receive (Com. v. Ham, 150 Mass. 122, 22 N.E. 704), and although this assumption may not prevent the granting of a new trial when the inevitable effect of inadmissible evidence is to prejudice the objecting party's whole case and testimony, as in Miller v. Curtis, 158 Mass. 127, 32 N.E. 1039, we do not regard such an effect as likely here. Evidence of disturbed marital relations at particular times had no bearing on the question whether the plaintiff had lost his wife's services, or the defendant had been negligent.

Exceptions overruled.