Beckwith v. Cheshire Railroad
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
The eirst case was an action of tort for assaulting the plaintiff, and forcibly ejecting her from a car of the defendant.
Read the full summary
The eirst case was an action of tort for assaulting the plaintiff, and forcibly ejecting her from a car of the defendant. Trial in the Superior Court, before Knowlton, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows : The plaintiff’s evidence tended to show that she was nine years of age, and was travelling in the care .and custody of her mother; that they entered the cars of the defendant, a steam railroad corporation and common carrier of passengers, at Fitch-burg, intending to go to Marlborough, N. H., a station on the defendant’s road; that the mother purchased a ticket for…
1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, J.
We agree with the argument of the counsel for the defendant, that if the meaning of the words of the Pub. Sts. c. 112, § 197, (St. 1874, c. 372, § 150,) “No person shall be removed from a car of a steam railroad corporation except as provided in section eighteen of chapter one hundred and three,” (St. 1874, c. 372, § 146,) had been to take away the right of such corporation to remove from a train a person who does not pay his fare, without arresting him as provided in the section referred to, there would have been no reason for adding the further words, “nor from a train except at a regular…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Dion v. DrapeauMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1926
- Braun v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
- Georgia Railway & Power Co. v. TurnerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1924
- Fleck v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of TexasCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1916
- Sullivan v. Old Colony RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.