Churchill v. Hulbert
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
1Opinion of the CourtMorton, J.
This is an action of tort for an assault and battery. The evidence tended to show that the defendant forcibly entered the'premises of the plaintiff for the purpose of removing certain manure which he claimed as his property; that the plaintiff, being present, forbade his entering and resisted it by seizing the heads of the defendant’s horses to prevent them from pro* *43ceeding further, and thereupon the defendant struck him with a shovel and broke his arm, and then proceeded to remove the manure. The defendant claimed that he had an irrevocable license to entei and remove the manure, and asked…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. PhippsIndiana Court of Appeals · 1911
- Lambert v. RobinsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1894
- Drury v. HerveyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1879
- Stanley v. PayneSupreme Court of Vermont · 1905
- Souther v. Northwestern Telephone Exchange Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1912
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.