Lynch v. Moore
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort, for injury to the plaintiff’s horse. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Mason, J., it appeared that the plaintiff’s horse and the defendant’s horse were both left facing each other, unattended and unfastened, on Hanover Street in Boston. The evidence introduced by each party tended to show that his horse was approached and interfered with by the horse of the other party; and that the injury in question resulted.
Read the full summary
Tort, for injury to the plaintiff’s horse. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Mason, J., it appeared that the plaintiff’s horse and the defendant’s horse were both left facing each other, unattended and unfastened, on Hanover Street in Boston. The evidence introduced by each party tended to show that his horse was approached and interfered with by the horse of the other party; and that the injury in question resulted. The defendant’s evidence tended to show that the plaintiff’s horse walked up to the defendant’s horse, and began to bite his neck in a playful manner, and that in this…
1Opinion of the CourtMorton, J.
The only exception taken by the defendant relates to the exclusion of the question to the witness Curtis. The witness had testified that he knew the plaintiff’s horse, and had seen it on the stand two or three times a week, but all he knew of its habits was what he saw it do with horses of his own firm, which he generally turned the other way. He was then asked what was the habit of the plaintiff’s horse with reference to other horses standing near. We think the question must be understood to mean what were its habits with reference to other horses standing near, so far as the observation or…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Broderick v. HigginsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1897
- Johnstone v. TuttleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907
- Dunn v. SarnoMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1962