King v. Norcross
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort. Writ in the Superior Court for the county of Worcester dated May 5, 1905. The declaration is quoted in full in the opinion. The defendant demurred on the ground that the declaration failed to comply with the requirements of R. L. c. 173, and on the ground that it appeared from the declaration that the plaintiff was a trespasser and that the defendant owed him no duty. The demurrer was sustained, judgment was entered for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtKnowlton, C. J.
This case comes before us on an appeal from a judgment for the defendant, founded on an order sustaining his demurrer to the plaintiff’s declaration. The declaration is as follows: “ And the plaintiff says that on or about the nineteenth day of April, 1905, the defendant carelessly and negligently built a fire upon the premises of the defendant within the limits of the turnpike so called leading from the town of Sutton to the town of Millbury in said county, and being a public highway, and did then and there burn a large quantity of brush; that owing to the gross carelessness and negligence…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Gates v. Boston & Maine RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1926
- Little v. Lynn & Marblehead Real Estate Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1938
- Mann v. MaxSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1919
- Samuel v. White Fuel Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1955
- Ingram v. Tasco Hotel Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1954