TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Sandler v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.

Esther Sandler v. Boston Elevated Railway Company & trustee

Sandler v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co., 218 Mass. 333 (1914)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 17, 1914
Judges
Loring
Citations
218 Mass. 333
Headnotes
Practice, Civil, Venue. Trustee Process. Statute, Repeal. Since St. 1904, c. 320, providing that "An action against a city, town, person, or corporation to recover for injury or damage received in this Commonwealth by reason of negligence . . . shall be brought in the county in which the plaintiff lives or has his usual place of business, or in the county in which the alleged injury or damage was received,” such an action cannot be brought in any county other than is specified in that statute even though it be brought by trustee process and a trustee named in the writ has a usual place of business in such other county, because that statute repealed inconsistent provisions of R. L. c. 189, §§ 1, 2, which provided that such an action might be brought by trustee process and, if so brought, should be brought in the county where a trustee dwelt or had a usual place of business.
Summary
Tort, by trustee process, for personal injuries alleged in the declaration to have been received in Malden in the county of Middlesex and to have been caused by negligence of the defendant. The writ alleged that the plaintiff was of Lawrence in the county of Essex and that the trustee was the National Shawmut Bank of Boston. Writ dated November 5, 1913.- The defendant moved to dismiss the action on the ground that it was improperly brought in the county of Suffolk, under St. 1904, c. 320; which, so far as material, reads as follows: “An action against a city, town, person, or corporation to recover for injury or damage received in this Commonwealth by reason of negligence . . . shall be brought in the county in which the plaintiff lives or has his usual place of business, or in the county in which the alleged injury or damage was received.” The motion was allowed by Crosby, J. The plaintiff appealed.

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

Opinion of the Court — Loring

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

Loring, J.

The purpose of St. 1904, c. 320, is manifest. It was to relieve the courts of those counties in which defendants in actions of negligence usually have a place of business from the trial of actions where the act of negligence happened in another county to plaintiffs residing or having a place of business in other counties. If (as is contended by the plaintiff) it were still possible' to begin the action (in such cases) by a trustee writ, the purpose of the enactment to a large extent would be nullified. We are of opinion that the Legislature meant what it said when it provided that such actions “shall be brought” in the county where the plaintiff lives or has his usual place of business, or in the county in which the injury was received, and that R. L. c. 189, §§ 1, 2, were to that extent impliedly repealed. See in this connection Kilby Bank, petitioner, 23 Pick. 93 ; Merchants Bank v. Cook, 4 Pick. 405 .

The order for judgment dismissing the action must be affirmed; and it is So ordered.

How later courts describe this case

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

1915: 11921: 11937: 11952: 119152026peak 1915 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Paige v. Sinclair130 N.E. 177 (Mass. 1921)
  2. Hanley v. Eastern Steamship Corp.221 Mass. 125 (1915)
  3. Pinson v. Potter10 N.E.2d 136 (Mass. 1937)
  4. City of Boston v. DeMerritt4 Mass. App. Dec. 107 (1952)

Most recent

  1. City of Boston v. DeMerritt4 Mass. App. Dec. 107 (1952)
  2. Pinson v. Potter10 N.E.2d 136 (Mass. 1937)
  3. Paige v. Sinclair130 N.E. 177 (Mass. 1921)
  4. Hanley v. Eastern Steamship Corp.221 Mass. 125 (1915)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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