Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

199

184

287

288

86

75

26

525

327

141

Holden v. Fletcher, 6 Cush. 235
Holland v. Cruft, 3 Gray, 162
Hollis v. Richardson, 13 Gray, 392
Hooker v. Hubbard, 97 Mass. 175 81, 272
Howard v. Hayward, 16 Gray, 354
Howe ". Huntington, 15 Maine, 350
Hoyt v. Thompson, 1 Seld. 320
Hubbard v. Barker, 1 Allen, 99

v. Mosely, 11 Gray, 170

Huddleston v. Lowell Machine Shop,
106 Mass. 282

Hughes. Macfie, 2 H. & C. 744
Hunt v. Thompson, 2 Allen, 341
v. Whitney, 4 Met. 603
Hutchinson v. Gurley, 8 Allen, 23

43

Lewis v. Lewis, 106 Mass. 309

v. Lyman, 22 Pick. 437

Lichtenhein v. Boston & Providence
Railroad Co. 11 Cush. 70

Little v. Cambridge, 9 Cush. 298 Littlefield v. Smith, 17 Maine, 327 536 466 Livingstone v. Kane, 3 Johns, Ch. 224

Laing v. Laing, 6 C. E. Green, 248
Lamb v. Lynd, 44 Penn. State, 336
Landon v. Emmons, 97 Mass. 37
Laughran v. Kelly, 8 Cush. 199
Laurence v. Aberdein, 5 B. & Ald
107

330

92

491

155

145

Leighton v. Harwood, 111 Mass. 67
Leonard v. Leonard, 14 Pick. 280
v. Speidel, 104 Mass. 356

511

310

280

328

40

377, 382

322

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

v. Mercein, 8 Paige, 47 v. Smith, 21 N. Y. 595 Perry v. Goodwin, 6 Mass. 498 Phelps v. Davis, 6 Allen, 287 v. Worcester, 11 N. H. 51 Pidge v. Pidge, 3 Met. 257 Pierce v. Eaton, 11 Gray, 398 v. George, 108 Mass. 78 v. Woodward, 6 Pick. 206 Piper v. Pearson, 2 Gray, 120 Poor v. Poor, 8 N. H. 307 Potter v. Smith, 103 Mass. 68 Powell v. Deveney, 3 Cush. 300 Pratt v. Parkman, 24 Pick. 42 Presbrey v. Old Colony & Newport Railway Co. 103 Mass. 1 Prescott v. Trueman, 4 Mass. 627 Price v. Weaver, 13 Gray, 272

Queen, The, v. St. George's Union, L. R. 7 Q. B. 90

Railway Co. v. Whitton, 13 Wall.

270

Randfield v. Randfield, 3 De G., F. & J. 766

Rex v. Bailey, Russ. & Ry. 341

[blocks in formation]

330

131

282

483

265

330

79, 80

542

15

30

169

330

74

123

141

166, 167

29

150 30

253

74, 75

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

COUNTY OF ESSEX, NOVEMBER TERM 1872,
AT SALEM.

[CONTINUED FROM VOL. CX.]

PRESENT:

HON. REUBEN A. CHAPMAN, CHIEF JUSTICE.

HON. HORACE GRAY, JR.,

HON. JOHN WELLS,
HON. JAMES D. COLT,

HON. SETH AMES,

}

JUSTICES.

JOSEPH CARROLL vs. MANCHESTER AND LAWRENCE RAIL

ROAD CORPORATION.

Conduct by one of the parties to a transaction will not amount to an estoppel if it was not accompanied by a design that the other party should act upon it, and has not been followed by any change in the situation of that party.

TORT to recover damages for an injury sustained by the plaintiff from the defendants' negligence, while a passenger upon their road. Writ dated February 17, 1872. Trial in the Superior Court, before Putnam, J., who allowed the following bill of exceptions:

"The evidence tended to show that the plaintiff received an injury by a collision of trains upon the defendants' road; that

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »