Lawrence v. City of Boston
Cases that cite this one
37 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Travellers International AG. (In re Trans World Airlines, Inc.) (United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware 1994)
- Frank v. Assessors of Skowhegan (Me. 1974)
- Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation v. Worcester County Trust Co. (Mass. 1940)
- Portland Silk Co. v. City of Middletown (Conn. 1939)
- Alfred J. Sweet, Inc. v. City of Auburn (Me. 1935)
- Maher v. Commonwealth (Mass. 1935)
- Jolt v. City of Salem (Mass. 1931)
- County of Los Angeles v. Signal Realty Co. (Cal. Ct. App. 1927)
- Inhabitants of Westport v. County Commissioners (Mass. 1923)
- United States v. Golden (D. Minn. 1923)
- United States v. Percansky (D. Minn. 1923)
- The Cushing (District Court, S.D. New York 1922)
- United States v. New River Collieries Co. (3d Cir. 1921)
- Kafka v. Davidson (Minn. 1917)
- Sandy Valley & Elkhorn Railway Co. v. Bentley (Ky. Ct. App. 1914)
- Smith v. Commonwealth (Mass. 1911)
- Stephens v. State (Ala. Ct. App. 1911)
- Cornell-Andrews Smelting Co. v. Boston & Providence Railroad (Mass. 1909)
- Maxon v. Gates (Wis. 1908)
- Plymouth Cordage Co. v. Smith (Okla. 1907)
- Logan v. Boston Elevated Railway Co. (Mass. 1905)
- Guyandot Valley R'y Co. v. Buskirk (W. Va. 1905)
- Reilly v. Cullen (Mo. Ct. App. 1903)
- United States v. Honolulu Plantation Co. (9th Cir. 1903)
- Kennebec Water District v. City of Waterville (Me. 1902)
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
Beals was not a party to the record. He defended this suit, not by reason of any relation to the city, or liability for the act for which this suit was brought, when that act was done , but by virtue of a subsequent contract between himself and the city. His previous declarations, made when his interests were adverse to those of the city, were not admissible in evidence, except to contradict him; and not being offered for that purpose, they were rightly excluded.
The question whether Freeland was qualified to testify to his opinion of the value of the premises was within the discretion of the presiding judge, and no error in law is shown in the exercise of that discretion.
The instructions to the jury were such as have been usually given in similar cases in this Commonwealth, and were correct and sufficient. Exceptions overruled.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.