Kirchgassner v. Rodick
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract, upon an account annexed, for use and occupation of certain premises in Boston, and for services as a domestic. Answer: 1. A general denial. 2. The statute of limitations. Trial in the Superior Court, before Hopkins, J., who ruled that, upon all the evidence, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, and directed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant; and the plaintiff alleged exceptions. The facts appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMorton, J.
The plaintiff seeks in this action to recover from the defendant one half of the sum alleged to be due from him for twenty-three years’ use and occupation, from September, 1869, to September, 1892, of certain premises of which she inherited one half from her father in 1870, and the other half from her mother in 1891, and for thirteen years’ services as a domestic, from August, 1879, to September, 1892.
In regard to the claim for use and occupation, it is agreed that the plaintiff’s father died in 1870, seised of the premises and leaving a widow, the plaintiff’s mother, and as his sole heirs at…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Austin v. . AhearneNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Central Mills Co. v. HartMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878
- Merrill v. BullockMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
- Disbrow v. DurandSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1892
- Livingston v. HammondMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1894
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Gerace v. GeraceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1938
- Butler v. ButlerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1916
- Glickman v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923
- Colbert v. RickerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
- Burke v. WillardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.