Burns v. Stuart
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort, under Pub. Sts. c. 102, § 93, to recover double the amount of the damage sustained from the bite of a dog. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Fessenden, J., the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; and the defendant alleged exceptions to the exclusion of evidence, the nature of which appears in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, J.
This was an action of tort for the bite of a dog. The dog which bit the plaintiff was described in the testimony as a bull terrier or bull dog, weighing about fourteen pounds, and of a light color with a spot. The defendant denied that he owned the dog described, and testified that the only dog which he ever owned was a fox terrier weighing about ten pounds, white, without a spot; that he owned this dog while living in Somerville, as he had done until about two weeks before, and that he had had it licensed there. He identified and offered the license. It was excluded,' and the defendant…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Sewall v. SewallMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1877
- Murchie v. CornellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1891
3Cited by7 opinions
- Graham v. MiddlebyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1904
- Bay State Wholesale Drug Co. v. WhitmanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1932
- State v. BaldwinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1927
- Griffin v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1905
- City of Cambridge v. Town of West SpringfieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.