Boston & Maine Railroad v. Portland, Saco & Portsmouth Railroad
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract. The material facts, as they appeared from the pleadings and a report of the case by Devens, J., were as follows : The plaintiff and the Eastern Railroad Company made a joint contract with the defendant, in 1847, by which they had possession of the defendant’s railroad and other property, under an agreement to run and operate the same, paying the defendant a fixed dividend on its capital stock therefor, and taking to their own use all the income and profits of…
Read the full summary
Contract. The material facts, as they appeared from the pleadings and a report of the case by Devens, J., were as follows : The plaintiff and the Eastern Railroad Company made a joint contract with the defendant, in 1847, by which they had possession of the defendant’s railroad and other property, under an agreement to run and operate the same, paying the defendant a fixed dividend on its capital stock therefor, and taking to their own use all the income and profits of working the road. They further agreed to make all betterments, improvements, and additions to the equipment which they should…
1Opinion of the CourtGray, C. J.
It nos long been a settled rule in this Commonwealth, in accordance with the law as understood in England at the time of our Revolution, that when a person, answerable in contract to two jointly, settles with one of them, so that that *500one has no longer any real interest in the matter in dispute, it is a severance of the cause of action, and the debtor is liable in an action at law to the other alone. Lord Mansfield, in Garret v. Taylor (1764), and Kirkman v. Newstead (1776), 1 Esp. Dig. 117. 1 Chit. PI. (2d Am. ed.) 7. Austin v. Walsh, 2 Mass. 401, 405. Baker v. Jewell, 6 Mass. 460, 461.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Baker v. JewellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810
- Austin v. WalshMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1807
- Sawyer v. SteeleU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania · 1818
3Cited by11 opinions
- Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. HartIndiana Supreme Court · 1889
- Thomson v. PentecostMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1911
- Poole v. GriffithSupreme Court of Alabama · 1927
- Southeastern Greyhound Lines v. WellsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1949
- Thomas v. BensonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1928
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.