Legal Opinion

Cammisa v. Ferreira

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided October 27, 1931PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRugg, C.J.

The writ, as amended, described this action as one of tort or contract. There were four counts in the *142declaration but there was no allegation that all counts were for one and the same cause of action. G. L. c. 231, § 7, Sixth. Hulett v. Pixley, 97 Mass. 29. The cause of action set forth in all the counts was damage to the goods of the plaintiff by the defendant to whom they were entrusted. Two of the counts appear to be founded on breach of a contract for transportation of the goods from Fall River to Washington, D. C., and two counts on breach of a contract to transport, and to store the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Townsend v. HargravesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
  2. Flye v. HallMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1916
  3. Clapp v. CampbellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878
  4. Hulett v. PixleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1867
  5. Ganley v. LamsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1931

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. New England Foundation Co. v. Elliott & Watrous, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940
  2. Hacker v. NitschkeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1942
  3. Gartland v. FreemanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1931
  4. Kennedy v. Boston & Maine RailroadMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1944

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

Powered by the Exa API