Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

justment. The ruling of the single justice was in accordance with our decisions. Taylor v. Van Deusen, 3 Gray, 498: Barry v. Curley, 202 Mass. 42. Hunneman v. Lowell Institution for Savings, 205 Mass. 441.

Exceptions overruled.

CROHON AND RODEN COMPANY, LIMITED vs. BENJAMIN RUDNICK. Suffolk. March 11, 1919. - April 11, 1919.

Present: RUGG, C. J., LORING, DE COURCY, PIERCE, & CARROLL, JJ.

Contract, What constitutes, Consideration. Conversion.

If one, who is the treasurer of a corporation, promises the owner of certain hides that he will turn over to him the identical checks received by his corporation in payment for goods of such owner which were sold by the corporation under a contract with the owner that the identical checks so received should be turned over to the owner, such promise of the treasurer is without consideration and an action of contract cannot be maintained by the owner against him for its breach. If such treasurer, knowing of the agreement between his corporation and the owner of the hides that the title to the hides was to remain in the owner and that the identical checks were to be turned over to the owner when his hides were sold, uses or allows to be used such identical checks, the owner may maintain an action against him personally for conversion of the checks.

CONTRACT OF TORT. Writ dated April 26, 1917.

The declaration as amended was in two counts. The following allegations were identical in the two counts:

"And the plaintiff says that in 1916 the defendant was treasurer and a director of the Bay State Leather Company, a corporation organized under the laws of Massachusetts and having a usual place of business in Boston, in said Commonwealth; that during 1916 said Company had certain hides belonging to the plaintiff which they were to turn into leather and splits for the plaintiff; that said Company agreed that the title to said hides and to said leather and splits should remain in the plaintiff until sold, and that when sold the identical proceeds received from such sale or sales should be turned immediately over to the plaintiff; that the defendant well knew the conditions under which said Company held said hides, leather and splits, and agreed that the identical checks

received from any sales of said leather or splits should be turned over to the plaintiff; that during the time that the defendant was treasurer of said Company he did receive checks from the sale of said leather and splits, and did not turn over said checks to the plaintiff as he agreed."

[ocr errors]

Further allegations in the first count were that the defendant negligently and carelessly disregarding the rights of the plaintiff and his own promises . . . allowed said checks to be used for other purposes; that said checks received amounted to at least seven thousand dollars. Wherefore the defendant owes the plaintiff the sum of seven thousand dollars, with interest thereon from the date of receipt of said checks."

The additional allegations in the second count were that the defendant "negligently and carelessly disregarding the rights of the plaintiff to said checks, and failing to keep his agree ment with reference to said checks, . . . used or allowed to be used said checks for other purposes; that said checks received amounted to at least seven thousand dollars. Wherefore the defendant owes the plaintiff the sum of seven thousand dollars, with interest thereon from the time said checks were received by him."

It further was alleged that "the two counts above set forth are for the same cause of action, the plaintiff being undecided to which class of action this belongs."

The defendant demurred. The demurrer was heard by J. F. Brown, J., and was sustained, and judgment was entered for the defendant. The plaintiff appealed.

F. A. Wyman, for the plaintiff.

C. S. Hill, for the defendant.

DE COURCY, J. The demurrer to the plaintiff's amended declaration was sustained, and judgment entered for the defendant. On this appeal we cannot consider the bill of particulars which was filed in connection with the original declaration.

The demurrer to the first count was sustained rightly. The contract alleged is one between the plaintiff and the Bay State Leather Company, which was to sell the plaintiff's property and turn over to him the identical proceeds. The alleged promise of the defendant, a director and treasurer of the corporation, to turn over to the plaintiff the identical checks received by the

corporation, was without consideration. See, in that connection, Cabot v. Shaw, 148 Mass. 459.

The second count, on which the plaintiff chiefly relies, is in tort, for a wrong done to the plaintiff by the defendant as an individual. It alleges that the Bay State Leather Company had hides belonging to the plaintiff, which it agreed to turn into leather; the title to the hides and leather to remain in the plaintiff until sold, and the "identical proceeds" from such sales immediately to be turned over to the plaintiff. It further alleges that the defendant knew these facts, agreed that "the identical checks received" by him from the sales should be turned over to the plaintiff, and nevertheless used or allowed to be used for other purposes the checks which he received. Assuming the allegations to be true, for the purposes of the demurrer, the checks 'were the property of the plaintiff, for whom the defendant held them in trust; and the unauthorized exercise of dominion over them, with intent thereby to appropriate them to the use of himself or others, and so deprive the owner of them, would render the defendant liable as for a fraudulent conversion. Judson v. Adams, 8 Cush. 556. Commonwealth v. Moore, 166 Mass. 513. It follows that the demurrer should be sustained as to the first count, and overruled as to the second count.

Ordered accordingly.

JOHN E. MCCARTHY'S CASE.

Suffolk. March 11, 1919. - April 11, 1919.

Present: RUGG, C. J., LORING, DE COURCY, PIERCE, & CARROLL, JJ.

Workmen's Compensation Act.

In a claim under the workmen's compensation act by an employee of a town, who suffered a sunstroke when he was working for the town in a gravel or sand pit on one of the hottest days in summer, the evidence warranted findings that the banks of the pit where the employee worked attracted the extreme heat and shut off the air except from the south and that the nature of the employee's work required him to remain at it steadily, that the time which elapsed between his first symptoms of approaching sunstroke and his collapse was inappreciable so that he had no opportunity to escape the effects of the injury caused by his

exposure to the heat, and that on the day of his injury the heat in the gravel pit was greater than that to which an ordinary outdoor worker was exposed. Held, that a finding was warranted that the employee's injury arose out of his employment, as it could be found that the risk of injury by sunstroke was naturally connected with and reasonably incidental to his employment as distinguished from the ordinary risk to which the general public was exposed from climatic conditions.

APPEAL to the Superior Court under the workmen's compensation act from a decision of the Industrial Accident Board awarding compensation to John E. McCarthy for an injury received by him on August 2, 1917, when in the employ of the town of Danvers, which had accepted St. 1913, c. 807.

The case first was heard by Chase, J., who made a decree in accordance with the decision of the Industrial Accident Board. This decree was reversed by a decision of this court reported in 230 Mass. 429, and the case was recommitted to the Industrial Accident Board to hear the parties on the question whether the employee was at liberty to stop his work in time to protect himself from injury.

Upon the evidence presented at the new hearing the Industrial Accident Board made the findings which are stated in the opinion. From the award of compensation made by the board the insurer again appealed to the Superior Court.

The case was heard by J. F. Brown, J., who made a decree awarding compensation in accordance with the decision of the Industrial Accident Board; and the insurer appealed.

G. Gleason, for the insurer, submitted a brief.

W. H. McSweeney, (A. Glovsky with him,) for the employee. DE COURCY, J. The employee received a sunstroke while working for the town of Danvers in a sand or gravel pit on August 2, 1917. The Industrial Accident Board awarded him compensation, a decree in accordance with their decision was entered in the Superior Court, and the insurer appealed. This court, in May, 1918, reversed the decree, and ordered that the case be recommitted to the board "to hear the parties on the question whether the employee was at liberty to stop his work in time to protect himself from injury." McCarthy's Case, 230 Mass, 429.

Thereupon the parties submitted expert and other testimony, and after a hearing the board made the following finding: "that the length of time which elapsed between the time when the

employee began to get the first symptoms and the time that he collapsed from sunstroke was inappreciable and that he had no opportunity to escape the effects of the personal injury occasioned by reason of his exposure to the heat. While the employee had the same right or liberty to leave his employment as any employee has when sickness overtakes him, he had no previous warning of the coming of the attack of sunstroke, was taken unawares, and was overcome thereby, because the heat in the gravel pit was greater than the heat to which an ordinary outdoor worker was exposed on the day of the injury."

This finding was amply warranted by the evidence. It settles in the employee's favor the only question bearing on his right of recovery that was left open on the earlier appeal. On all the evidence the board was warranted in finding that the employee's injury arose out of his employment. The place where he worked was a pit, with banks which attracted the extreme heat and shut off the air, except from the south. The nature of his work required him to remain at it steadily. The board well might find as a fact that the location and nature of the work peculiarly exposed the employee to the danger of sunstroke: in other words, that the risk of injury by sunstroke was naturally connected with and reasonably incident to his employment, as distinguished from the ordinary risk to which the general public is exposed from climatic conditions per se. McManaman's Case, 224 Mass. 554. Mooradjian's Case, 229 Mass. 521. Hallett's Case, ante, 49. Morgan v. Owners of Steamship Zenaida, 2 B. W. C. C. 19. Davies v. Gillespie, 5 B. W. C. C. 64. Kanscheit v. Garrett Laundry Co. 101 Neb. 702. State v. District Court of Ramsey County, 138 Minn. 250. Hernon v. Holahan, 169 N. Y. Supp. 705.

Decree affirmed.

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »