Grant v. Singer Manufacturing Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort for an assault by alleged agents of the defendant. Writ dated February 12, 1908. At the trial in the Superior Court before G-asMll, J. the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $500; and the defendant alleged exceptions.
1Opinion of the CourtLoring, J.
[After the foregoing statement of the case.] The evidence warranted a finding that Sexton was authorized to employ assistants; that he had employed Andrews to assist him in retaking the plaintiff’s machine, and that the sale to Andrews was a sham.
*493It is settled that the defendant would be liable for force used by Andrews as a means of retaking the machine, even if he had been told not to use force. Roberge v. Burnham, 124 Mass. 277. George v. Gobey, 128 Mass. 289. The defendant’s liability does not depend upon his having been authorized expressly or impliedly to use force, but upon his having…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- McCarthy v. TimminsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1901
- Roberge v. BurnhamMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878
- Perlstein v. American Express Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1901
- George v. GobeyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
3Cited by13 opinions
- Fanciullo v. B. G. & S. Theatre Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1937
- Axman v. Washington Gaslight Co.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1912
- Robinson v. DoeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1916
- Heywood v. OgasapianMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1916
- Richard v. Amoskeag Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1920
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.