Lyon v. City of Cambridge

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Lyon v. City of Cambridge

136 Mass. 419, 1884 Mass. LEXIS 125

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJanuary 30, 1884

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 136 Mass. 419 (Lyon v. City of Cambridge) 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

Lyon v. City of Cambridge, 136 Mass. 419, 1884 Mass. LEXIS 125 (Mass. 1884).

Pincite

Opinion

C. Allen, J.

It was necessary for the plaintiff, within thirty days after receiving his injury, to give written notice to the defendant of the cause thereof. Pub. Sts. c. 52, § 19. This was a condition precedent to his right of recovery. Shea v. Lowell, 132 Mass. 187. The alleged defect relied on as the cause of the plaintiff’s injury was a depression in the sidewalk, caused by the intersection of a passageway, which depression he was unable to see by reason of the darkness. But the darkness and the omission to light the street did not constitute a defect in the way for which the defendant is liable under the statute. Macomber v. Taunton, 100 Mass. 255. Nor is the defendant under any greater liability by reason of the city ordinance. Lorillard v. Monroe, 1 Kernan, 392, 396. Bowie v. Alexandria, 3 Pet. 398, 409. 2 Dillon Mun. Corp. (3d ed.) § 950. In the notice, no mention was made of the depression, which alone constituted the supposed defect. The Legislature having prescribed this condition, and the plaintiff having failed to comply with it, we can do no otherwise than hold that he is not entitled to maintain his action.

Exceptions overruled■

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

C. Allen, J.

It was necessary for the plaintiff, within thirty days after receiving his injury, to give written notice to the defendant of the cause thereof. Pub. Sts. c. 52, § 19. This was a condition precedent to his right of recovery. Shea v. Lowell, 132 Mass. 187. The alleged defect relied on as the cause of the plaintiff’s injury was a depression in the sidewalk, caused by the intersection of a passageway, which depression he was unable to see by reason of the darkness. But the darkness and the omission to light the street did not constitute a defect in the way for which the defendant is liable under the statute. Macomber v. Taunton, 100 Mass. 255. Nor is the defendant under any greater liability by reason of the city ordinance. Lorillard v. Monroe, 1 Kernan, 392, 396. Bowie v. Alexandria, 3 Pet. 398, 409. 2 Dillon Mun. Corp. (3d ed.) § 950. In the notice, no mention was made of the depression, which alone constituted the supposed defect. The Legislature having prescribed this condition, and the plaintiff having failed to comply with it, we can do no otherwise than hold that he is not entitled to maintain his action.

Exceptions overruled■

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 Mass. 419, 1884 Mass. LEXIS 125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lyon-v-city-of-cambridge-mass-1884.

Opinion

C. Allen, J.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack