Roach v. City of Somerville

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Roach v. City of Somerville

131 Mass. 189, 1881 Mass. LEXIS 214

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedApril 6, 1881

StatusPublished

This text of 131 Mass. 189 (Roach v. City of Somerville) 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

Roach v. City of Somerville, 131 Mass. 189, 1881 Mass. LEXIS 214 (Mass. 1881).

Pincite

Opinion

Morton, J.

This case is governed by Kenady v. Lawrence, 128 Mass. 318. The information given by Dr. Couch to the police officer on the morning after the accident to the plaintiff was not such notice as is required by the St. o'f 1877, c. 234. The communication of Dr. Couch did not purport to be a notice under the statute. It was not intended as a notice to fix the plaintiff’s right of action, and could not have been so understood by the officer. It was not made on behalf of the plaintiff. It was a mere casual conversation, which did not call upon the officer to notify his superior officers that a claim was made upon the city, and cannot affect the rights of the city any more than if the same information had come to him from any other source. [192]*192As there was no evidence to show that the plaintiff ever gave, or intended to give, a notice to the city, the presiding justice of the Superior Court could not do otherwise than to find for the defendant. Exceptions overruled.

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

Morton, J.

This case is governed by Kenady v. Lawrence, 128 Mass. 318. The information given by Dr. Couch to the police officer on the morning after the accident to the plaintiff was not such notice as is required by the St. o'f 1877, c. 234. The communication of Dr. Couch did not purport to be a notice under the statute. It was not intended as a notice to fix the plaintiff’s right of action, and could not have been so understood by the officer. It was not made on behalf of the plaintiff. It was a mere casual conversation, which did not call upon the officer to notify his superior officers that a claim was made upon the city, and cannot affect the rights of the city any more than if the same information had come to him from any other source. [192]*192As there was no evidence to show that the plaintiff ever gave, or intended to give, a notice to the city, the presiding justice of the Superior Court could not do otherwise than to find for the defendant. Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 Mass. 189, 1881 Mass. LEXIS 214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roach-v-city-of-somerville-mass-1881.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack