Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1870

Carter v. Towne

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Decided January 15, 1870 · Guay

103 Mass. 507

Cases that cite this one

28 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Nashville Railroad v. Howard ex rel. Howard (Tenn. 1903)
Killeen v. Harmon Grain Products, Inc. (Mass. App. Ct. 1980)
Del Gaizo v. Dreyfus Properties, Inc. (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1970)
Carter v. Yardley & Co. (Mass. 1946)
Mautino v. Piercedale Supply Co. (Pa. 1940)
Whalen v. City of Boston (Mass. 1939)
Henningsen v. MarkoWitz (New York Supreme Court 1928)
Solomon v. Red River Lumber Co. (Cal. Ct. App. 1922)
Sider v. General Electric Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1922)
Shaffer v. Mowery (Pa. 1919)
Clark v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours Powder Co. (Kan. 1915)
Young v. Williams (Ill. App. Ct. 1912)
Smith v. Peach (Mass. 1909)
Mella v. Northern S. S. Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York 1908)
Nickey v. Steuder (Ind. 1905)
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Merrill (Kan. 1902)
Griffin v. Jackson Light & Power Co. (Mich. 1901)
Afflick v. Bates (R.I. 1899)
Stone v. Boston & Albany Railroad (Mass. 1898)
Washington & Georgetown Railroad v. Hickey (Supreme Court of the United States 1897)
McGahan v. Indianapolis Natural Gas Co. (Ind. 1894)
Northern Pacific Railroad v. O'Brien (Wash. 1889)
Clifford v. Atlantic Cotton Mills (Mass. 1888)
Pegram v. Stortz (W. Va. 1888)
Kerrigan v. Hart (New York Supreme Court 1886)

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

Guay, J.

The testimony introduced for the plaintiff at the trial discloses quite a different case from that alleged in the declaration, which was held sufficient when the case was before us on the demurrer; and shows that the gunpowder sold by the defendants to the plaintiff had been in the legal custody and control of the plaintiff’s parents, or, in their absence, of his aunt, for more than a week before the use of the gunpowder by which he *509was injured. Under these circumstances, that injury was not the direct or proximate, the natural or probable, consequence of the defendants’ act; and the jury should have been instructed, in accordance with the defendants’ request, that there was no legal and sufficient evidence to authorize them to return a verdict for the plaintiff. As this strikes at the root of the action, it is unnecessary to consider the other questions argued by counsel. Exceptions sustained.

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