O'Neil v. Wolffsohn
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort for the conversion of one barrel of whiskey, attached by the defendant, a constable, as the property of one Thomas O’Neil, the plaintiff’s husband. Trial in the Superior Court, before Brigham,, C. J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows: It appeared in evidence that the plaintiff bought the stock and fixtures in the store 168 Kneeland Street, Boston, on February 6, 1882, with money which she had before her marriage, and on her own account.
Read the full summary
Tort for the conversion of one barrel of whiskey, attached by the defendant, a constable, as the property of one Thomas O’Neil, the plaintiff’s husband. Trial in the Superior Court, before Brigham,, C. J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows: It appeared in evidence that the plaintiff bought the stock and fixtures in the store 168 Kneeland Street, Boston, on February 6, 1882, with money which she had before her marriage, and on her own account. On November 1, 1882, she bought the barrel of whiskey in question from R. H. Higgins and Company, of Louisville, Kentucky, which…
1Opinion of the CourtC. Allen, J.
The only exception insisted on in argument is in respect to the sufficiency of the description of the plaintiff’s business in her certificate. No facts are set forth in the bill of exceptions to show in what manner her business was conducted; and no exception lies to the refusal of the court to give the instruction asked for, because it does not appear that there were any facts in evidence to call for it. This has often been adjudged. Wells v. Prince, 15 Gray, 562. Stearns v. Janes, 12 Allen, 582. Coker v. Ropes, 125 Mass. 577. Salomon v. Hathaway, 126 Mass. 482. Commonwealth v. Sargent, 129…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Salomon v. HathawayMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1879
- Commonwealth v. SargentMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
- Coker v. RopesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878