Legal Opinion

Coffey v. Gayton

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided February 8, 1939PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtThaxter, J.

Six actions at law, growing out of an automobile collision, were brought, three against Hazel E. Bicknell, and three against Harold N. Gayton. Two were prosecuted by Frank M. Coffey as executor of the estate of his wife, Mary Gertrude Coffey, to recover for her conscious pain and suffering, two were brought *143by Frank M. Coffey to recover for expenses in treating her injuries and for loss of her services, two more by him individually to recover for his own injuries. The plaintiff recovered a judgment in each case and executions were issued in the first two for $10,317.61 against Hazel E.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Higgins v. . Western Union Telegraph Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1898
  2. Koontz v. Messer & Quaker State Oil Refining Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
  3. Tarbox v. TarboxSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1914
  4. Inter-Southern Life Insurance v. HolzhauerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Monroe County Motor Co. v. Tennessee Odin Ins. Co.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1950
  2. Pennsylvania Threshermen & Farmers' Mutual Casualty Insurance v. Travelers InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1963
  3. Allstate Insurance v. UrbanAppellate Court of Illinois · 1957

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

Powered by the Exa API