Esty v. Wilmot
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
A.ction of tort for assault and battery. Trial and verdict for the plaintiff in the superior court in Middlesex, at September term 1859, before Fose, J., who signed this bill of exceptions : “ There was evidence tending to prove that the plaintiff was an operative in one of the mills in Lowell, and the defendant had charge of the section of the room where the plaintiff worked; that the plaintiff, while the defendant was near her work, in consequence of some words or act on…
Read the full summary
A.ction of tort for assault and battery. Trial and verdict for the plaintiff in the superior court in Middlesex, at September term 1859, before Fose, J., who signed this bill of exceptions : “ There was evidence tending to prove that the plaintiff was an operative in one of the mills in Lowell, and the defendant had charge of the section of the room where the plaintiff worked; that the plaintiff, while the defendant was near her work, in consequence of some words or act on his part, indignantly spit in his face; that the defendant communicated this fact to the principal overseer of the room,…
1Opinion of the CourtHoar, J.
The distinction made in the Six Carpenters’ case, 8 Co. 146, that “when an entry, authority or license is given to any one by the law, and he doth abuse it, he shall be a trespasser ab initia; but where an entry, authority or license is given by the party, and he abuses it, there he must be punished for his abuse, but shall not be a trespasser ab initia,” has been frequently recognized and applied in this Commonwealth, and is a familiar one. It is most commonly applied in cases of trespass to real estate where the original entry could not be resisted, being independent of the will or consent…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Katsonas v. W. M. Sutherland Building & Contracting Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1926
- Keesecker v. G. M. McKelvey Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1941