Churchill v. Ricker
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort. The declaration alleged that the defendant occupied a shop on Tremont Row in Boston; that in the sidewalk, in front of the shop, was a coal-hole opening into the cellar of the shop ; that it was the duty of the defendant to keep this coal-hole covered ; but that he negligently allowed it to remain open; and that the plaintiff, while walking with due care, fell into it and was injured.
Read the full summary
Tort. The declaration alleged that the defendant occupied a shop on Tremont Row in Boston; that in the sidewalk, in front of the shop, was a coal-hole opening into the cellar of the shop ; that it was the duty of the defendant to keep this coal-hole covered ; but that he negligently allowed it to remain open; and that the plaintiff, while walking with due care, fell into it and was injured. The answer denied all the allegations of the declaration, and alleged that, if the plaintiff was injured, it was by reason of his own negligence. The plaintiff filed interrogatories to the defendant", of…
1Opinion of the CourtGray, J.
The practice act provides that when one party to an action files interrogatories, to be answered on oath by the adverse party, for the discovery of material facts and documents,- “ the party interrogated may introduce into his answer any matter relevant to the issue to which the interrogatory relates,” and “ may require that the whole of the answers upon any one subject matter inquired of shall be read, if a part of them is read.” Gen. Sts. c. 129, §§ 51, 74. The “issue” and “subject matter” thus described is not the particular fact covered by any one or more interrogatories, but the matter…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Freeman v. United Fruit Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1916
- DiAngelo v. United Markets Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1946
- Kelley v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1937
- Demelman v. BurtonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1900