Legal Opinion
Zink v. Foss
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided May 19, 1915PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCarroll, J.
The plaintiff was bitten by the defendant’s dog. The jury returned a verdict in the plaintiff’s favor on the second count of the declaration, which states that the defendant owned and kept a dog; that wilfully, wantonly and recklessly he set the dog on the plaintiff, doing him damage. The damages of $446, as found by the jury, were doubled by the presiding judge * under R. L. c. 102, § 146. The defendant had asked the judge to rule, (1) that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover; and (2) that under the second count the plaintiff was entitled to recover only the actual damages sustained by…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Aiken v. Holyoke Street Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1903
- Chenery v. Fitchburg RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1893
- Yancey v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1910
- McKeon v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1903
- Riley v. HarrisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1900
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Barnes v. City of SpringfieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1929
- Sandler v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1995
- Andrews v. Jordan Marsh Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933
- Stebbins v. North Adams Trust Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1922
- Potter v. GilmoreMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.