Legal Opinion

Brocklehurst & Potter Co. v. Marsch

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided September 13, 1916PublishedCited by 33 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRugg, C. J.

These are three actions at law which have been reported by a judge of the Superior Court* for determination as to the correctness of his orders overruling the defendant’s demurrers to the several declarations. The action by the Brocklehurst and Potter Company will be considered first. The declaration is in three counts, the first in tort, and the second and third in contract.

The first count sets out in substance, that the defendant was a general contractor for the construction of a portion of the lines of the Southern New England Railroad and that the plaintiff had a subcontract with him for…

2Cases cited41 opinions

  1. Maynard v. Royal Worcester Corset Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
  2. Parker v. SimpsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1902
  3. Pearce v. AtwoodMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1816
  4. Kley v. . HealyNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
  5. Bliss v. New York Central & Hudson River RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1894

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

3Cited by33 opinions

  1. Fortune v. National Cash Register Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1977
  2. Marsch v. Southern New England RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1918
  3. Keljikian v. Star Brewing Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
  4. Clark v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
  5. Bethlehem Fabricators, Inc. v. H. D. Watts Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934

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

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

Powered by the Exa API