Liffin v. Inhabitants of Beverly

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Liffin v. Inhabitants of Beverly

14 N.E. 787, 145 Mass. 549, 1888 Mass. LEXIS 356

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJanuary 6, 1888

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 14 N.E. 787 (Liffin v. Inhabitants of Beverly) 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

Liffin v. Inhabitants of Beverly, 14 N.E. 787, 145 Mass. 549, 1888 Mass. LEXIS 356 (Mass. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

W. Allen, J.

The St. of 1882, o. 36, provides that a notice shall not be deemed to be insufficient by reason of any inaccuracy in stating the cause of the injury, if it is shown that there was no intention to mislead, and if the party entitled to notice was not in fact misled.

The place of the injury is minutely described in the notice, and it is said, as a cause of the injury, that the way at that place was defectively constructed, and in a dangerous and unfinished condition. The plaintiff offered to prove that the way was imperfectly constructed, so that at times water would accumulate on its side and run over the way and gully out a channel across it, and that she broke through the ice into a hole or gully four or five inches deep, caused by such faulty construction of the way. The jury might have found that there was no intention to mislead, and that the defendant was not in fact misled by the notice. Suppose the plaintiff had proved her case as she opened it, and shown that, if one of the defendant’s officers had gone to the spot designated in the notice, he could have found a way defectively constructed so as to collect the water in winter and pour it over the travelled path, and a hole or gully four or five inches deep caused by such defective condition, would not a jury be justified, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, in finding that the defendant was not misled ? The notice pointed to a particular place of the highway which it said was defectively constructed, and left in a dangerous and unfinished condition. It does not follow, from the fact that that particular defect was not mentioned, that the defendant was. misled; and a jury would be authorized to find, upon proof of the facts stated by the plaintiff, and in the absence of other evidence, that there was no intention to mislead, and that the defendant was not in fact misled. Fortin v. Easthampton, 142 Mass. 486. Canterbury v. Boston, 141 Mass. 215. Spellman v. Chicopee, 131 Mass. 443. Exceptions sustained.

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

W. Allen, J.

The St. of 1882, o. 36, provides that a notice shall not be deemed to be insufficient by reason of any inaccuracy in stating the cause of the injury, if it is shown that there was no intention to mislead, and if the party entitled to notice was not in fact misled.

The place of the injury is minutely described in the notice, and it is said, as a cause of the injury, that the way at that place was defectively constructed, and in a dangerous and unfinished condition. The plaintiff offered to prove that the way was imperfectly constructed, so that at times water would accumulate on its side and run over the way and gully out a channel across it, and that she broke through the ice into a hole or gully four or five inches deep, caused by such faulty construction of the way. The jury might have found that there was no intention to mislead, and that the defendant was not in fact misled by the notice. Suppose the plaintiff had proved her case as she opened it, and shown that, if one of the defendant’s officers had gone to the spot designated in the notice, he could have found a way defectively constructed so as to collect the water in winter and pour it over the travelled path, and a hole or gully four or five inches deep caused by such defective condition, would not a jury be justified, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, in finding that the defendant was not misled ? The notice pointed to a particular place of the highway which it said was defectively constructed, and left in a dangerous and unfinished condition. It does not follow, from the fact that that particular defect was not mentioned, that the defendant was. misled; and a jury would be authorized to find, upon proof of the facts stated by the plaintiff, and in the absence of other evidence, that there was no intention to mislead, and that the defendant was not in fact misled. Fortin v. Easthampton, 142 Mass. 486. Canterbury v. Boston, 141 Mass. 215. Spellman v. Chicopee, 131 Mass. 443. Exceptions sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 N.E. 787, 145 Mass. 549, 1888 Mass. LEXIS 356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liffin-v-inhabitants-of-beverly-mass-1888.

Opinion

W. Allen, J.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack