317 Mass. 768

October 25, 1944

Exceptions overruled. The plaintiff sustained bodily injury in the defendant's retail store when another woman, apparently a customer, pushed against her a gocart containing a child. No regulation of the defendant prohibited such vehicles in the store. There was no evidence of fault on the part of the defendant unless its failure to exclude such vehicles from its store was evidence of fault. We think it was not. Cutler v. Jordan Marsh Co. 265 Mass. 245. Andrews v. Jordan Marsh Co. 283 Mass. 158. Fiske v. Boston Elevated Railway, 289 Mass. 598. Rich v. Boston Elevated Railway, 316 Mass. 615.

J. HENRY O'NEILL vs. S. S. KRESGE COMPANY. October 25, 1944. Exceptions overruled. The plaintiff sues for consequential damages resulting from an injury to his wife, Margaret T. O'Neill. For reasons stated in the rescript in her action against the same defendant, he cannot recover.


317 Mass. 768

October 26, 1944

Exceptions overruled. Judgment for defendant. There was no evidence of negligence of the defendant. The case is governed by Ritchie v. Boston Elevated Railway, 238 Mass. 473, Rogers v. Boston Elevated Railway, 246 Mass. 478, and Parker v. Boston Elevated Railway, 273 Mass. 345. See also Knowles v. Boston Elevated Railway, 233 Mass. 347; Burns v. Boston Elevated Railway, 244 Mass. 451; Dullea v. Boston Elevated Railway, 251 Mass. 56; and Boyd v. Boston Elevated Railway, 264 Mass. 364.

Home BOSTON SAFE DEPOSIT AND TRUST COMPANY, special administrator, & others vs. HARRIET GRACE SCOTT.

317 Mass. 768

November 9, 1944

Decrees affirmed. The Probate Court, after hearing, entered a decree allowing the first and final account of the Boston Safe Deposit and Trust Company as special administrator of the estate of Carrie Scott Merrill, and a decree allowing the first and final account of the Boston Safe Deposit and Trust Company, Charles A. Bean and Phillip H. Tirrell, executors of the will of said Carrie Scott Merrill. A legatee appealed from each of these decrees. The only item in the special administrator's account in dispute is the compensation of the special administrator, and the only item in the executors' account in dispute is the compensation of the executors. General Laws (Ter. Ed.) c. 206, Section 16, as amended by St. 1941, c. 36, provides that an administrator or executor "shall have such compensation for services as the court may allow." This means compensation that is "just and reasonable." Parker v. Hill, 185 Mass. 14. Kinion v. Riley, 310 Mass. 338, 342, and cases cited. There is no special finding that the compensation involved in either account was "just and reasonable." But the allowance of the accounts imports such findings. See Bearse v. Styler, 309 Mass. 288, 291. All the evidence is reported. It cannot be said that upon this evidence the findings were plainly wrong. The decrees, therefore, are affirmed.