Harford v. Taylor
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort in the nature of trespass quare clausum fregit. Writ dated December 15, 1899. At the trial in the Superior Court before Gaskill, J., the judge ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to recover at least nominal damages, and left the case to the jury upon the question of damages. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff assessing the damages in the sum of $285; and the defendant alleged exceptions. Six rulings were requested by the defendant and refused by the judge.
Read the full summary
Tort in the nature of trespass quare clausum fregit. Writ dated December 15, 1899. At the trial in the Superior Court before Gaskill, J., the judge ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to recover at least nominal damages, and left the case to the jury upon the question of damages. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff assessing the damages in the sum of $285; and the defendant alleged exceptions. Six rulings were requested by the defendant and refused by the judge. The substance of the first five is stated by the court. The sixth ruling, for the refusal of which the defendant’s…
1Opinion of the CourtLoring, J.
On June 13,1896, the defendant let the premises in question to the plaintiff and one Brown, for a term of years, beginning on the first day of September following. When the lease was executed the defendant was building a store on the premises, in which Brown and the plaintiff intended to carry on the business of apothecaries as partners. But before September 1, when the term was to begin, “ they decided that they would not enter into partnership nor do business together on the premises but that Brown should occupy the store and carry on the business therein on his own account.” It further…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Byam v. BickfordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1885
- Stimson v. CrosbyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1902
3Cited by2 opinions
- Capen v. LeachMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1902
- Locke v. FaheyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934