Cooper v. Adams
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was an action of trespass, for breaking and entering the plaintiff’s close, dwelling-house, and slaughter-house, in Northbridge; to which the defendant specified in defence, under the general issue, that he owned the house and slaughterhouse, and had a license, in law and in fact, to enter upon the close.
Read the full summary
This was an action of trespass, for breaking and entering the plaintiff’s close, dwelling-house, and slaughter-house, in Northbridge; to which the defendant specified in defence, under the general issue, that he owned the house and slaughterhouse, and had a license, in law and in fact, to enter upon the close. It was in evidence, on the trial before Mellen, J., in the court of common pleas, that the plaintiff, in 1834, conveyed the premises in question to his sons Ezra and John L. Cooper, who, at the same time, reconveyed the estate to him, for his natural life; that in 1836, the sons, with…
1Opinion of the CourtWilde, J.
This, from the facts reported, appears to the court to be a very clear case. It is an action of trespass, for breaking and entering the plaintiff’s close, dwelling-house, and slaughter-house, and the defendant pleaded the general issue, and specified as matter of defence, that he owned the dwelling-house and slaughter-house, and had in law and in fact a license to enter upon the close in the manner he did.
But by the report of the case, it appears, that the dwelling-house and slaughter-house were. built by Ezra Cooper and John L. Cooper, the sons of the plaintiff, on the locus in quo, with his…
2Cited by36 opinions
- St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co. v. MathewsSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- City of Delphi v. LoweryIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
- Wall v. PlattMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1897
- U. P. R. W. Co. v. RollinsSupreme Court of Kansas · 1869
- Union Pac. R'y Co. v. De BuskSupreme Court of Colorado · 1888
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.