Greenleaf v. Inhabitants of Norridgwock
This text of 19 A. 91 (Greenleaf v. Inhabitants of Norridgwock) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
A statute of this state declares that no action shall be maintained against a town for an injury caused by a defect in one of its highways, unless the person injured shall within fourteen days thereafter notify the municipal officers of [65]*65tlie town in writing, setting forth his claim for damages, and specifying the nature of his injuries and uthe nature, and location of the defect which caused such injury.” R. S., c. 18, § 80. No such notice was given in this caso. A notice was given stating that, “in consequence of a defect in the highways in the.town,” the plaintiff was thrown from his carriage and injured. But the notice does not specify the nature or the location of the defect. In these particulars the notice is fatally defective. The court below so ruled and ordered a nonsuit. The ruling was correct. The statute is not directory merely, it is mandatory. Such a notice as the statute mentions must not only be given, but it must be averred in the writ and proved at the trial, or the action can not be maintained. Low v. Windham, 75 Maine, 113, and cases there cited.
Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
19 A. 91, 82 Me. 62, 1889 Me. LEXIS 84, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greenleaf-v-inhabitants-of-norridgwock-me-1889.