Legal Opinion

Vogel v. McAuliffe

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Decided February 2, 1895PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Defendant’s petition for a new trial.

1Opinion of the CourtTillinghast, J.

1. We do not think the plaintiff misconceived his form of action. The declara tion does not allege nor does the proof show that the defendant’s servants wrongfully entered the plaintiff’s premises, that is, that they committed any trespass in so doing, hut on the other hand the proof shows that they entered with the implied permission of the plaintiff, he having been present at the time and having asked them as to their purpose ; and upon being informed that they were there to repair his furnace so as to prevent the gas from escaping therefrom into the tenement of one Page who lived in the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Scott v. BayCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1853

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Mesolella v. City of ProvidenceSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1986
  2. Lindsay v. Oregon Short Line RailroadIdaho Supreme Court · 1907
  3. Hawkins v. Scituate Oil Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 1999
  4. Gibney v. LewisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1896

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API