Dalton v. City of Salem

131 Mass. 551, 1881 Mass. LEXIS 320
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided November 23, 1881·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Dbvens, J.

It is not contended that the notice required before bringing the action was insufficient, except in its statement of the cause of the injury. This was alleged to be “ a defective construction or condition of the street, sidewalk and edgestones at the place above named.” It is not possible on behalf of the plaintiff to distinguish this case from Noonan v. Lawrence, 130 Mass. 161, where the notice which assigned as the cause of the injury “ the defective and dangerous condition of the way, which the city negligently permitted to be out of repair,” was held insufficient. Indeed, the allegation being here made in the alternative, without assigning any definite cause either in the construction or condition of the street, sidewalk and edgestone from which the injury occurred, only leaves it more uncertain to what cause the plaintiff intended to attribute it. Judgment on the verdict.

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

Dalton v. City of Salem, 131 Mass. 551, 1881 Mass. LEXIS 320 (Mass. 1881).

131 Mass. 551 (Dalton v. City of Salem) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dean v. City of Boston
45 Mass. App. Dec. 138 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1970)
Cakouns v. City of Cambridge
8 Mass. App. Div. 161 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1943)
Brown v. Town of Winthrop
175 N.E. 50 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1931)
Larkin v. City of Minneapolis
127 N.W. 1129 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1910)
Kennedy v. New York Telephone Co.
125 A.D. 846 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1908)
Maloney v. Cook
44 A. 692 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1899)