Legal Opinion
Sherman v. Collingwood
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided April 3, 1915PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLoring, J.
This case is before us on exceptions taken on a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence.
On October 10, 1911, the defendant, a deputy sheriff, attached “certain junk” (which was at that time on the premises of the plaintiff in Plymouth) as the property of a firm consisting of her husband Abraham Sherman and one Shacat. Thereupon the *10plaintiff sued the deputy sheriff for conversion of the junk (on the ground that it was her property) and on September 17,1912, obtained a verdict for $1,500. A motion for a new trial, “assigning the ordinary reasons therefor,” was made…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Lindenbaum v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
- Borley v. AllisonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1902
- Cotter v. Nathan & Hurst Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1912
- Soebel v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907
- Farris v. St. Paul's Baptist ChurchMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1914
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Davis v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1920
- DeLuca v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1942
- Commonwealth v. SharpeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1948
- Anti v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923
- Spiller v. Metropolitan Transit AuthorityMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1965
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.