Dickinson v. Richmond
Cases that cite this one
7 later published cases cite this decision.
- Maher v. Haycock (Mass. 1938)
- Robbins v. Pacific Eastern Corp. (Cal. 1937)
- Bauer v. Bond & Goodwin Inc. (Mass. 1934)
- Burr v. Nivison (N.J. 1909)
- Stephens v. Clay (Colo. 1892)
- City of Evansville v. Morris (Ind. 1882)
- Cranson v. Goss (Mass. 1871)
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
There does not appear to have been any violation of the statute for the observance of the Lord’s day, on the part of the plaintiff. Gen. Sts. c. 84. The evidence only shows that the request for the use of the plaintiff’s horse was made by the defendant on that day; but it was not proved that the plaintiff then agreed to comply with it. For aught that the case discloses, the plaintiff’s assent, which was necessary to consummate the contract, was given on a subsequent day. There
Besides, there was evidence to warrant a finding for the plaintiff on the quantum meruit count, irrespectively of any evidence of an express contract. The defendant admitted the rendition of the service by the plaintiff, and that he was indebted to the latter therefor. Exceptions overruled.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.