Arnold v. Nash
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort for breaking and entering the plaintiff’s close, and removing the plaintiff’s goods therefrom, and for an assault. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Putnam, J., the plaintiff offered evidence tending to show that he had been in the occupancy of a grocery on Warren Street in Boston for some four years, the latter portion of the time without any written lease, being a tenant at will, and paying his rent monthly; that on Saturday, November 24, 1877, the defendant…
Read the full summary
Tort for breaking and entering the plaintiff’s close, and removing the plaintiff’s goods therefrom, and for an assault. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Putnam, J., the plaintiff offered evidence tending to show that he had been in the occupancy of a grocery on Warren Street in Boston for some four years, the latter portion of the time without any written lease, being a tenant at will, and paying his rent monthly; that on Saturday, November 24, 1877, the defendant attached certain goods in the store, which were the property of one Hayes, and put in a keeper; that he kept the keeper…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The only ruling excepted to is that, assuming, as matter of fact, that the defendant obtained peaceable entry and possession on Saturday, and, as matter of law, that previous notice was necessary, then, as matter of law, two days *399was a reasonable time for such notice; and the bill of exceptions states no facts having any tendency to show that the ruling, as applicable to the circumstances of this case, was erroneous. Pratt v. Farrar, 10 Allen, 519.
Exceptions overruled.
2Cited by2 opinions
- McCarthy v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1910
- Wardell v. EtterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1886