Turley v. Boston & Maine Railroad
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
At the close of the plaintiff’s evidence a nonsuit was ordered, subject to his exception.
1Opinion of the CourtParsons, J.
As there was no evidence tending to show that the shooting of the plaintiff by Saxton resulted from any fault of the defendants, was directed by them or done by their authority, or was any part of Saxton’s work of cleaning and caring for the lamps in the yard, for which he was employed and which was the sole capacity in which he represented the defendants, it cannot be found that the act of Saxton complained of, whether willful or negligent, was the defendants’ act, or within the scope of Saxton’s employment by them. McGill v. Granite Co., ante, p. 125; Rowell v. Railroad, 68 N. H. 358;…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Rowell v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1895
- Andrews v. GreenSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1882
3Cited by5 opinions
- Richard v. Amoskeag Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1920
- Grubb v. Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1913
- Dalby v. Shannon & FlorenceSupreme Court of Virginia · 1924
- Lytle v. Crescent News and Hotel Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1902
- Patenaude v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1913