Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1846

Anthony v. Slaid

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Decided September 15, 1846 · Shaw

52 Mass. 290

Cases that cite this one

18 later published cases cite this decision. The 17 that cite it most often are listed here.

Iron Workers Local Union No. 17 Insurance Fund v. Philip Morris Inc. (District Court, N.D. Ohio 1998)
Seafarers Welfare Plan v. Philip Morris (District Court, D. Maryland 1998)
Laborers Local 17 Health & Benefit Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc. (2d Cir. 1999)
Laborers Local 17 Health And Benefit Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc. (2d Cir. 1998)
Texas Carpenters Health Benefit Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc. (District Court, E.D. Texas 1998)
United Food & Commercial Workers Unions, Employers Health & Welfare Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc. (11th Cir. 2000)
United Food and Commercial v. Philip Morris (11th Cir. 2000)
New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc. (District Court, D. New Jersey 1998)
Skinner v. Skinner (In re Skinner) (United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 2014)
Owens Corning v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co. (Miss. 2004)
Owens Corning v. Altria Group, Inc. (Miss. 2001)
Ganim v. Smith & Wesson Corp. (Conn. 2001)
Laborers' & Operating Engineers' Utility Agreement Health & Welfare Trust Fund for Arizona v. Philip Morris, Inc. (United States District Court for the District of Arizona 1999)
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 734 v. Philip Morris Inc. (7th Cir. 1999)
Laborers Local 17 Health & Benefit Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 1998)
Fidelity & Casualty Insurance v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (Conn. 1938)
Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co. (N.Y. 1928)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Shaw, C. J.

The case stated in the plaintiff’s declaration is this: He was a contractor for the support of all the poor of *291the town of Adams, at a fixed sum per annum, and undertook to support them, in sickness and health, at his own risk: The defendant’s wife committed an assault and battery upon one of the town paupers, by means of which he was hurt, and the plaintiff was put to increased expense for his cure and support.

Robinson & Sayles, for the plaintiff. Byington, for the defendants.

The court of common pleas decided that this action, if the facts alleged in the declaration were proved, could not be maintained; and exceptions were alleged by the plaintiff. We are of opinion that this decision was right. It is not by means of any natural or legal relation between the plaintiff and the party injured, that the plaintiff sustains any loss by the act of the defendant’s wife, but by means of the special contract by which he had undertaken to support the town paupers. The damage is too remote and indirect. If such a principle be admitted, we do not see why the consequence would not follow, as stated in the argument for the defendants, that in a case where an assault is committed, or other injury is done to the person or property of a town pauper, or of an indigent person who becomes a pauper, the town might maintain an action, with a per quod, for damages. That there is no precedent for such an action, where there must have been many occasions for bringing it, if maintainable, is a strong argument.against it. Lamb v. Stone, 11 Pick. 527.

Exceptions overruled.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.