Legal Opinion

Gay v. Essex Electric Street Railway Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided May 22, 1893PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Tort. The declaration was as follows: “ The plaintiff says that he is the duly appointed administrator of Albert G. Gay, late of said Salem, deceased, and that he brings this action under chapter 140 of the Acts of 1886, for the use of the father and mother of said Albert G., (he having left no children and no widow,) as the next of kin of said Albert G. The plaintiff further says, that on October 15, 1890, his intestate lost his life by reason of the negligence and…

Read the full summary

Tort. The declaration was as follows: “ The plaintiff says that he is the duly appointed administrator of Albert G. Gay, late of said Salem, deceased, and that he brings this action under chapter 140 of the Acts of 1886, for the use of the father and mother of said Albert G., (he having left no children and no widow,) as the next of kin of said Albert G. The plaintiff further says, that on October 15, 1890, his intestate lost his life by reason of the negligence and carelessness of the defendant in the operation of its street railway, and of the unfitness and gross negligence and carelessness…

1Opinion of the CourtMorton, J.

The only difference between this and the preceding case is that that is a suit at common law, and this is brought under St. 1886, c. 140. Except so far as it contains averments rendered necessary by the fact that it is brought under that statute, the essential allegations contained in the declaration as amended in this case are the same as those contained in the amended declaration in the preceding case. It is necessary to consider, therefore, only the allegations which are peculiar to this case. These are that the plaintiff’s “ intestate lost his life by reason of the negligence and…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. Boston & Maine RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1882
  2. Peaslee v. Fitchburg RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1890

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Oulighan v. ButlerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1905
  2. Robertson v. Rockland Light & Power Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1919
  3. Fitzgerald v. RodgersAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1901
  4. Fitzgerald v. RodgersAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1901

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

Powered by the Exa API