Cummings v. Bird
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort for libel. At the trial in this court before Colt, J., the case was reserved for the consideration of the full court on the pleadings and evidence. The plaintiff afterwards died, and his administratrix sought to come in and maintain the suit, and offered to show that the intestate lost two offices in consequence of the alleged libel.
1Opinion of the CourtDevens, J.
The original plaintiff having deceased at the time of the argument of this cause, and the administratrix having now come in, it is first to be determined whether the suit, which is for a libel upon him, has abated by his death. The rule of the common law is that actions of tort for misfeasance or malfeasance do not survive, and if this action does so in this Commonwealth it is by virtue of Gen. Sts. c. 127, § 1.* The ground taken by the counsel for the administratrix is, that as actions for damage done to real or personal estate survive, and as it is alleged that the plaintiff lost a…
2Cited by16 opinions
- Martin's Administrator v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Putnam v. SavageMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923
- Harrison v. Loyal Protective Life InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1979
- Warren v. Para Rubber Shoe Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1896
- McGrath v. C. T. Sherer Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.