Legal Opinion

Henriques v. Franklin Motor Car Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided July 1, 1927PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWait, J.

The burden is upon the plairitiff, who seeks recovery against a corporation for alleged tortious conduct of its servant, to show that the servant was acting on its behalf and by its authority. If the act complained of is done in the course of the ordinary work of the servant and is within the ostensible authority of one performing such *519work, the burden is sustained by showing what was done, Mills v. W. T. Grant Co. 233 Mass. 140; but if it is not, something more must be given in evidence before the plaintiff is entitled to have his case presented to a jury. Witham v. Gregory & Read Co. 243…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Mills v. W. T. Grant Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1919
  2. Witham v. Gregory & Read Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1976
  2. Commonwealth Bank & Trust Co. v. PlotkinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1976
  3. Jordan v. C. I. T. Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
  4. Smith v. Eliot Savings BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1969

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

Powered by the Exa API