Poor v. Sears
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort, for personal injuries. The first count of the declaration was as follows: “ And the plaintiff says that the defendant is the owner of premises ISTo. 41 Arch Street, in said Boston, and also owns and has the care of certain machinery in said building ; and defendant negligently and carelessly permitted a part of his machinery to remain in a dangerous condition and position.
Read the full summary
Tort, for personal injuries. The first count of the declaration was as follows: “ And the plaintiff says that the defendant is the owner of premises ISTo. 41 Arch Street, in said Boston, and also owns and has the care of certain machinery in said building ; and defendant negligently and carelessly permitted a part of his machinery to remain in a dangerous condition and position. And plaintiff further says that defendant carelessly and negligently omitted to place around said machinery a proper protection or to enclose it in a proper framework. Said building is occupied by Messrs. Rockwell and…
1Opinion of the CourtMorton, J.
The ruling of the court, that, in consequence of the lease to Rockwell and Churchill, the defendant was not liable to the plaintiff by reason of his ownership of the premises was, to say the least, sufficiently favorable to the defendant. We need not consider carefully whether, under the terms of the lease, the shafting, belting, and pulleys, by means of which power was transmitted from the engine in the basement of 41 Arch Street to 39 Arch Street and the building beyond belonging to Mr. Amory, remained in the control of and were to be kept in repair by the defendant, or passed under the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Swords v. . EdgarNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Gill v. MiddletonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
- Readman v. ConwayMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1879
- Priest v. NicholsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
- Maguire v. Fitchburg RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Kuhlen v. Boston & Northern Street Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907
- Perkins v. RiceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1904
- Laskowski v. ManningMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1950
- Conroy v. MaxwellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1924
- Ladd v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.