Legal Opinion

Cheney v. Middlesex Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided May 16, 1894PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLathrop, J.

This is an action at common law, for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff while in the employ of the defendant, by reason of his hand being caught in the gearing of a spinning machine, called a mule. At the close of the evidence, the court directed a verdict for the defendant; and the case comes before us on the plaintiff’s exception to this ruling.

The plaintiff was eighteen years of age, and liad for a considerable time before the accident worked on spinning machines. He had attended school, and was in the Lowell High School when he went to work for the defendant. There is nothing to…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Downey v. SawyerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
  2. Pratt v. ProutyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1891
  3. Coullard v. MillsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1890
  4. Tinkham v. SawyerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1891
  5. Richstain v. Washington Mills Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1893

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Wilson v. Massachusetts Cotton MillsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1897
  2. Gaudet v. StansfieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1903
  3. Silvia v. Sagamore Manufacturing Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1901
  4. Brodeur v. SeymourMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1941

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

Powered by the Exa API