Madden v. City of Springfield

131 Mass. 441, 1881 Mass. LEXIS 283
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedOctober 22, 1881
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 131 Mass. 441 (Madden v. City of Springfield) 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
Madden v. City of Springfield, 131 Mass. 441, 1881 Mass. LEXIS 283 (Mass. 1881).

Opinion

Mortor, J.

The statute provides that “ any person ” injured by a defect in a highway, shall within thirty days thereafter give notice to the town, city, place or persons obliged by law to repair the same, of the time, place and cause of the injury; such notice is a condition precedent to the right to maintain an action for the injury. St. 1877, c. 234. Kenady v. Lawrence, 128 Mass. 318. Gay v. Cambridge, 128 Mass. 387.

This provision includes infants as well as adults, a sufficient protection to the rights of infants being furnished by the further provision which permits the notice to be given in their behalf by their parents, guardians or any other person. § 4. Taylor v. Woburn, 130 Mass. 494. In the case at bar, the father of the infant plaintiff, more than thirty days after the injury, gave written notice of the injury to the defendant. It would be useless to discuss the questions whether there was a sufficient excuse for the delay in giving the notice, or whether there is a sufficient description of the place of the injury, because the notice is fatally defective in another respect. The only cause of the injury set out in the notice is that it was received “ by reason of a defect in the highway.”

In Miles v. Lynn, 130 Mass. 398, where the notice stated that the cause of the injury was “ by reason of a defect in the street,” and in Noonan v. Lawrence, 130 Mass. 161, where equivalent' words were used, it was held that the notices were insufficient under the statute. These cases are decisive of the case at bar.

Judgment on the verdict.

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

Related

George v. Town of Saugus
474 N.E.2d 169 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1985)
Brown v. Board of Trustees
104 N.E.2d 866 (New York Court of Appeals, 1952)
Galloway v. City of Winchester
184 S.W.2d 890 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1945)
Artukovich v. Astendorf
131 P.2d 831 (California Supreme Court, 1942)
Marshall v. City of Cambridge
6 Mass. App. Div. 66 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1941)
Lazich v. Belanger
105 P.2d 738 (Montana Supreme Court, 1940)
King v. City of Boston
15 N.E.2d 191 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1938)
Robinson v. City of Memphis
105 S.W.2d 101 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1937)
City of Birmingham v. Weston
172 So. 643 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1937)
Szroka v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.
213 N.W. 557 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1927)
Dechant ex rel. Dechant v. City of Hays
212 P. 682 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1923)
Stoliker v. City of Boston
90 N.E. 927 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1910)
Finneran v. Graham
84 N.E. 473 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1908)
Carberry v. Inhabitants of Sharon
43 N.E. 912 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1896)
McKeigue v. City of Janesville
31 N.W. 298 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1887)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
131 Mass. 441, 1881 Mass. LEXIS 283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/madden-v-city-of-springfield-mass-1881.