Barclay v. City of Boston

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Barclay v. City of Boston

53 N.E. 822, 173 Mass. 310, 1899 Mass. LEXIS 1079

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMay 18, 1899

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 53 N.E. 822 (Barclay v. City of Boston) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barclay v. City of Boston, 53 N.E. 822, 173 Mass. 310, 1899 Mass. LEXIS 1079 (Mass. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Barker, J.

At the second trial of this case, after the decision reported Barclay v. Boston, 167 Mass. 596, the evidence tended to show that the plaintiff’s intestate died upon the twelfth day after her injury, and without herself giving the statute notice ; and that before the expiration of ten days from the time of the accident she became delirious and remained delirious and unable to transact business until her death. If such were the facts, under the provisions of Pub. Sts. c. 52, § 21, her administratrix might give the notice, and the presiding justice was therefore wrong in ordering a verdict for the defendant, as matter of law. The question of fact, if disputed, was for the jury.

Exceptions sustained.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Barker, J.

At the second trial of this case, after the decision reported Barclay v. Boston, 167 Mass. 596, the evidence tended to show that the plaintiff’s intestate died upon the twelfth day after her injury, and without herself giving the statute notice ; and that before the expiration of ten days from the time of the accident she became delirious and remained delirious and unable to transact business until her death. If such were the facts, under the provisions of Pub. Sts. c. 52, § 21, her administratrix might give the notice, and the presiding justice was therefore wrong in ordering a verdict for the defendant, as matter of law. The question of fact, if disputed, was for the jury.

Exceptions sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 N.E. 822, 173 Mass. 310, 1899 Mass. LEXIS 1079, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barclay-v-city-of-boston-mass-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack