Donnelly v. City of Fall River

130 Mass. 115, 1881 Mass. LEXIS 18
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided January 8, 1881·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Lord, J.

The notice to the city in this case was so like that of Larkin v. Boston, 128 Mass. 521, that it must necessarily be governed by the decision in that case. The statute requires the notice to state the time, place and cause of the injury. The notice in this case states the place to be “ the sidewalk on Pleasant Street.” Pleasant Street is stated in the bill of exceptions [116] to be plie of the principal streets of the city, and is about two miles in length. To say that the defect, whether it be gas pipe, or excavation, or obstruction, is in Pleasant Street, is not, within the meaning of the statute, a statement of the place; and the presiding judge should have so ruled.

Exceptions sustained.

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

Donnelly v. City of Fall River, 130 Mass. 115, 1881 Mass. LEXIS 18 (Mass. 1881).

130 Mass. 115 (Donnelly v. City of Fall River) — 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)
Rogers v. City & County of Honolulu
32 Haw. 722 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1933)
Haggard v. City of Arkansas City
229 P. 70 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1924)
English v. City of Ft. Worth
152 S.W. 179 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1912)
Tobin v. Inhabitants of Brimfield
65 N.E. 28 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1902)
Shea v. City of Lowell
132 Mass. 187 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1882)