Pendergast v. Inhabitants of Clinton

18 N.E. 75, 147 Mass. 402, 1888 Mass. LEXIS 119
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided October 13, 1888·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

By the Court.

The notice given to the town was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the statute. It was given within thirty days after the injury, and sets out “ the time, place, and cause of the said injury,” with reasonable certainty. Pub. Sts. c. 52, § 19. Savory v. Haverhill, 132 Mass. 324. As the notice was sufficient, the instructions given to the jury upon the assumption that it was defective are immaterial. We need not, therefore, discuss them, but we do not intend to imply that there was any error in them.

The other exception taken at the trial is waived.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Pendergast v. Inhabitants of Clinton, 18 N.E. 75, 147 Mass. 402, 1888 Mass. LEXIS 119 (Mass. 1888).

18 N.E. 75 (Pendergast v. Inhabitants of Clinton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ajamian v. Town of Watertown
57 N.E.2d 642 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1944)
Gardner v. Inhabitants of Weymouth
30 N.E. 363 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1892)