Barclay v. City of Boston

53 N.E. 822, 173 Mass. 310, 1899 Mass. LEXIS 1079
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided May 18, 1899·Published·Cited by 5 cases

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

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

53 N.E. 822 (Barclay v. City of Boston) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Young v. Board of Education of Union Free School District Eight
193 Misc. 216 (New York County Courts, 1948)
Locklin v. Fisher
264 A.D. 452 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1942)
Murphy v. . Village of Fort Edward
107 N.E. 716 (New York Court of Appeals, 1915)
Stoliker v. City of Boston
90 N.E. 927 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1910)
Born v. City of Spokane
68 P. 386 (Washington Supreme Court, 1902)