Roberts v. Inhabitants of Limington

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Roberts v. Inhabitants of Limington

125 A. 925, 124 Me. 428, 1924 Me. LEXIS 72

DecidedJuly 12, 1924

StatusPublished

This text of 125 A. 925 (Roberts v. Inhabitants of Limington) 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

Roberts v. Inhabitants of Limington, 125 A. 925, 124 Me. 428, 1924 Me. LEXIS 72 (Me. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

In this action brought to recover for damages to a portable engine alleged to be due to a defective highway bridge, it is conceded that the plaintiff’s verdict should be sustained if the fourteen day notice was given in conformity to R. S., Chapter 24, Section 92. A notice was seasonably given. Admittedly it was in other respects sufficient, but it contained no specification of the nature of the damage to the engine. This the befendant contends is a fatal defect. The reasoning of the defendant’s learned counsel is plausible and forceful.' The language of the statute is not entirely clear. But the question at issue has been by this court settled adversely to the defendant by the case of Creedon v. Kittery, 117 Maine, 541. We perceive no sufficient reason for overruling the opinion in that case. Motion and exceptions overruled.

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

In this action brought to recover for damages to a portable engine alleged to be due to a defective highway bridge, it is conceded that the plaintiff’s verdict should be sustained if the fourteen day notice was given in conformity to R. S., Chapter 24, Section 92. A notice was seasonably given. Admittedly it was in other respects sufficient, but it contained no specification of the nature of the damage to the engine. This the befendant contends is a fatal defect. The reasoning of the defendant’s learned counsel is plausible and forceful.' The language of the statute is not entirely clear. But the question at issue has been by this court settled adversely to the defendant by the case of Creedon v. Kittery, 117 Maine, 541. We perceive no sufficient reason for overruling the opinion in that case. Motion and exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 A. 925, 124 Me. 428, 1924 Me. LEXIS 72, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-v-inhabitants-of-limington-me-1924.