Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1881

Perkins v. O'Mahoney

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Decided November 3, 1881 · Gray

131 Mass. 546; 1881 Mass. LEXIS 317

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

Chadwick v. Stokes (3d Cir. 1947)
Donovan v. McCarty (Mass. 1892)

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

Gray, C. J.

By the law of the Commonwealth for three quarters of a century before the passage of the General Statutes, pilots entitled by statute to fees for services offered and refused might recover those fees by action against the master. St. 1783, *547c. 13. Rev. Sts. c. 32. Smith v. Swift, 8 Met. 329. Martin v. Hilton, 9 Met. 371. Winslow v. Prince, 6 Cush. 368. Hunt v. Carlisle, 1 Gray, 257. Chapter 52 of the General Statutes reenacts the principal provisions of the statutes thereby repealed; and the provision introduced in § 7 of that chapter, giving the pilot a lien on the vessel for his fees, does not, and has never been understood to, take away his right of action against the master therefor. Gen. Sts. c. 52, § 12. St. 1862, c. 176, schedule, els. 3, 4, 5, 10. Chandler v. Doody, 101 Mass. 267. Josselyn v. Gleason, 103 Mass. 237. Perkins v. Buckley, 120 Mass. 3. Wilson v. Gray, 127 Mass. 98. The America, 1 Lowell, 176.

The necessity imposed by statute to take a pilot for the security of life and property brings the case within the exception in the Lord’s day act. Gen. Sts. c. 84, §§ 1, 2.

Exceptions overruled.

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