Legal Opinion
Rourke v. Cadillac Automobile Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided June 25, 1929PublishedCited by 32 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWait, J.
The plaintiff left his automobile with the defendant for repairs and repainting. The defendant, in accord with its practice, sent the vehicle to the Somerville Auto Painting Company to be repainted. While it was at Somerville, the automobile was damaged by fire. It was insured. The insurer paid a loss to the plaintiff, who also received what was left of the machine. The plaintiff sued the defendant in tort, declaring, in his first count, for negligence, and, in a second count, for conversion. The trial judge directed a verdict for the defendant on both counts. The case is before us on…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Barrie v. QuinbyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1910
- Spooner v. HolmesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
- Spooner v. ManchesterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1882
- Maynard v. BuckMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868
- Hecht v. Boston Wharf Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1915
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- Merrimac Chemical Co. v. MooreMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1932
- Sandler v. Commonwealth Station Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940
- Bellows v. Worcester Storage Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1937
- Morse v. Homer's Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1936
- Wood v. FRANK GRAHAM COMPANYCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1955
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.