Mahoney v. Norcross
Edgar Mahoney v. Enid K. Norcross
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
By the Court.
The case at bar falls within the general principle that in an action arising from a collision between automobiles at intersecting streets the due care and contributory negligence of the plaintiff and the negligence, of the defendant present questions of fact. The finding in favor of the plaintiff imports a finding of all subsidiary facts essential to that conclusion and must stand unless unsupported by the evidence. Without summarizing the testimony it is enough to say that a finding in favor of the plaintiff was warranted. Ferreira v. Zaccolanti, 281 Mass. 91 .
The defendant presented several requests for rulings which were refused because based on assumptions of facts not in accord with the facts found by the trial judge. It is not *154 necessary to examine such requests because they are immaterial in view of the facts found. John Hetherington & Sons, Ltd. v. William Firth Co. 210 Mass. 8, 18 . Castano v. Leone, 278 Mass. 429 .
Order dismissing report affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 50 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.