Legal Opinion

Whittemore v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided April 3, 1906PublishedCited by 10 opinions

Contract for an alleged breach of the contract in writing printed below by the removal of a spur track. Writ dated June 5,1900. In the Superior Court the case was heard by Fox, J. upon an auditor’s report.

Read the full summary

Contract for an alleged breach of the contract in writing printed below by the removal of a spur track. Writ dated June 5,1900. In the Superior Court the case was heard by Fox, J. upon an auditor’s report. The plaintiff, having read the auditor’s report and the pleadings, requested the judge to rule as follows: “The contract annexed is, on the part of the railroad company, an agreement to maintain the spur track in question to accommodate the coal business of the plaintiff until such time as it is necessary for the accommodation of the defendant’s business to remove the same, and if it is…

1Opinion of the CourtLoring, J.

The construction of the contract here in question, put forward by the plaintiff in his request for a ruling, is wrong.

It has been the law of this Commonwealth from the beginning that a railroad not owning the fee in its location, having regard to the duty owed by it to the public, is the sole judge of what shall be or shall not be done within the location. Brainard v. Clapp, 10 Cush. 6.

The thing to be removed here was a connection in one of the main tracks of the defendant. The terms of the agreement were “ that whenever said first party may find it necessary for the accommodation of its…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Lockwood Manufacturing Co. v. Mason Regulator Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1903
  2. Whittemore v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1899

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Handy v. BlissMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1910
  2. Doherty v. Phoenix InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1916
  3. Jones v. RockefellerWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1983
  4. Ex Parte BenightCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1932
  5. Fried v. SingerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1922

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API