Mooney v. City of Salem

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Mooney v. City of Salem

130 Mass. 402, 1881 Mass. LEXIS 114

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedFebruary 25, 1881

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 130 Mass. 402 (Mooney v. City of Salem) 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

Mooney v. City of Salem, 130 Mass. 402, 1881 Mass. LEXIS 114 (Mass. 1881).

Pincite

Opinion

Soule, J.

The plaintiff failed to give the notice required by the statute. In his conversation, he failed to say anything which indicated that he intended that what he told the officer in answer to inquiries should be received as the notice which the statute requires. Under these circumstances, the fact that he intended that what he said should be reported to the officials of the city, does not aid him. He failed to make known any purpose of the sort. The further fact, that the officer called on him, in the performance of a real or supposed duty, to learn the facts and report them at the police station, does not affect the rights of the parties. Knowledge on the part of the officer or of the city authorities is not equivalent to, nor a substitute for, the notice required by the statute as a prerequisite to the right of action. St. 1877, o. 234. The case is clearly within the doctrine of Kenady v. Lawrence, 128 Mass. 318, McNulty v. Cambridge, ante, 275, and Miles v. Lynn, ante, 398. According to the terms of the report, there must be

Judgment for the defendant.

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

Soule, J.

The plaintiff failed to give the notice required by the statute. In his conversation, he failed to say anything which indicated that he intended that what he told the officer in answer to inquiries should be received as the notice which the statute requires. Under these circumstances, the fact that he intended that what he said should be reported to the officials of the city, does not aid him. He failed to make known any purpose of the sort. The further fact, that the officer called on him, in the performance of a real or supposed duty, to learn the facts and report them at the police station, does not affect the rights of the parties. Knowledge on the part of the officer or of the city authorities is not equivalent to, nor a substitute for, the notice required by the statute as a prerequisite to the right of action. St. 1877, o. 234. The case is clearly within the doctrine of Kenady v. Lawrence, 128 Mass. 318, McNulty v. Cambridge, ante, 275, and Miles v. Lynn, ante, 398. According to the terms of the report, there must be

Judgment for the defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 Mass. 402, 1881 Mass. LEXIS 114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mooney-v-city-of-salem-mass-1881.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack