TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Sullivan v. Baxter

William Sullivan v. Francis J. Baxter

Sullivan v. Baxter, 22 N.E. 895 (Mass. 1889)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 29, 1889
Judges
Field
Citations
22 N.E. 895150 Mass. 2611889 Mass. LEXIS 69
Cited by 8
Headnotes
Action — Former Judgment — Special Damages. After judgment for the conversion of a chattel, an action cannot he maintained to recover special damages resulting from such conversion, but accidentally omitted to be claimed in the former action.
Summary
Tort. The declaration alleged, in substance, that the plaintiff, in a former action brought by him against the defendant for the conversion of a derrick, recovered judgment for the value of the derrick only, which judgment Was satisfied; that by a mistake he failed to aver and claim in that action certain special damages which resulted from the conversion, namely, the loss of profits from a valuable contract which he had, and which was thereby seriously interfered with, and from workmen employed by him on such contract; and that he was entitled to recover such special damages in this action. The defendant demurred to the declaration, on the ground that the former judgment was a bar to the action.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Field

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Field, J.

The conversion of the derrick by the defendant was a single wrongful act, for which only one action could be maintained. The plaintiff, having taken judgment in the former action for this conversion, cannot maintain the present action, because the cause of action is the same and the parties are the same as in the former action. The plaintiff could have alleged and proved in the former action any special damages which he was entitled to recover, and special damages do not constitute a separate cause of action. Trask v. Hartford New Haven Railroad, 2 Allen, 331 . Folsom v. Clemence, 119 Mass. 473 . McCaffrey v. Carter, 125 Mass. 330 . Knowlton v. New York & New England Railroad, 147 Mass. 606 . Bassett v. Connecticut River Railroad, ante, 178.

Judgment for the defendant.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 8 cases

View all citing references →
1891: 11894: 11898: 11901: 11916: 21930: 11935: 118912026peak 1916 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Brice v. Starr156 P. 12 (Wash. 1916)
  2. Sandler v. Silk198 N.E. 749 (Mass. 1935)
  3. Bliss v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad36 N.E. 65 (Mass. 1894)
  4. Clare v. New York & New England Railroad51 N.E. 1083 (Mass. 1898)
  5. Magaw v. Beals172 N.E. 347 (Mass. 1930)
  6. Cole v. Bay State Street Railway Co.223 Mass. 442 (1916)

Most recent

  1. Sandler v. Silk198 N.E. 749 (Mass. 1935)
  2. Magaw v. Beals172 N.E. 347 (Mass. 1930)
  3. Brice v. Starr156 P. 12 (Wash. 1916)
  4. Cole v. Bay State Street Railway Co.223 Mass. 442 (1916)
  5. Stern v. Riches87 N.W. 555 (Wis. 1901)
  6. Clare v. New York & New England Railroad51 N.E. 1083 (Mass. 1898)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Folsom v. Clemence, 119 Mass. 473 (1876) 14
McCaffrey v. Carter, 125 Mass. 330 (1878) 12
Knowlton v. N.Y. & New England R.R., 1 L.R.A. 625 (Mass. 1888) 10

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list