Perkins v. Inhabitants of York

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Perkins v. Inhabitants of York

106 A. 17, 118 Me. 488, 1919 Me. LEXIS 31

DecidedApril 2, 1919

StatusPublished

This text of 106 A. 17 (Perkins v. Inhabitants of York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Perkins v. Inhabitants of York, 106 A. 17, 118 Me. 488, 1919 Me. LEXIS 31 (Me. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Action brought to recover damages sustained by reason of an alleged defect in a highway which the defendant town was bound by law to keep in repair. At the close of plaintiff’s evidence, upon motion of defendant, the presiding Justice directed a non suit. The case comes to us upon exceptions to this ruling.

We have examined the record with great care, and while there may be sufficient evidence therein to require submission to the jury of the question whether a defect actually existed, yet there is no testimony showing that the municipal officers of the town, its road commissioners, or any person authorized to act for either of them, had twenty-four hours actual notice of the alleged defect or want of repair.

It follows therefore that the non suit was properly directed and the mandate must accordingly be: Exceptions overruled.

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

Action brought to recover damages sustained by reason of an alleged defect in a highway which the defendant town was bound by law to keep in repair. At the close of plaintiff’s evidence, upon motion of defendant, the presiding Justice directed a non suit. The case comes to us upon exceptions to this ruling.

We have examined the record with great care, and while there may be sufficient evidence therein to require submission to the jury of the question whether a defect actually existed, yet there is no testimony showing that the municipal officers of the town, its road commissioners, or any person authorized to act for either of them, had twenty-four hours actual notice of the alleged defect or want of repair.

It follows therefore that the non suit was properly directed and the mandate must accordingly be: Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 A. 17, 118 Me. 488, 1919 Me. LEXIS 31, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perkins-v-inhabitants-of-york-me-1919.