Cummings v. Perry
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract, for breach of an implied covenant in a lease of certain premises in Boston. At th.e trial in the Superior Court, before Bond, J., the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs ; and the defendant alleged exceptions. The facts appear in the opinion. The case was argued at the bar in December, 1896, and after-wards was submitted on briefs to all the justices.
1Opinion of the CourtField, C. J.
The exceptions do not describe the basement room and the means of access to it from the street with exactness, but from the explanations made at the argument and the rough plan exhibited we think we are able to understand the case. As the building was originally constructed it was plainly not intended that the elevator should be used for hoisting goods *151from the basement room to the sidewalk of the street, or for lowering goods from the sidewalk to- the basement room. The basement room was entered from the street by doors and steps in front of the building, and was lighted by windows from the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Lowell v. StrahanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1887
- Case v. MinotMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1893
- Buss v. DyerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878
- Johnson v. KnappMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889
3Cited by13 opinions
- Brighton Packing Co. v. Butchers' Slaughtering & Melting Ass'nMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1912
- Gorton-Pew Fisheries Co. v. TolmanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1912
- Raynes v. StevensMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1914
- Jemo v. Tourist Hotel Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1909
- C. A. Spencer & Son Co. v. Merrimac Valley Power & Buildings Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1922
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.