Wormwood v. City of Waltham
This text of 10 N.E. 800 (Wormwood v. City of Waltham) 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.
Opinion
The defendant objected to the notice offered by the plaintiff, upon the ground that it was not properly served upon the city. No other question is raised by the bill of exceptions.
The statute provides that, in the case of a city, the notice maybe given to the mayor, the city clerk, or the treasurer. Pub. Sts. o. 52, § 21. If this provides the exclusive mode in which a notice can be served, which we do not decide, the service in this case was sufficient. The plaintiff employed one Weeks, an alderman, to deliver the notice to the proper authorities. He might and did act as her agent. If he had delivered the notice to the city clerk, who had laid it before the board of aldermen [186]*186for their action, the service would clearly have been sufficient. The fact that the aldermen first acted upon the notice, and that then it was delivered to the city clerk, makes no difference. It was still a notice -given to the city clerk by her procurement, and was sufficient. Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
10 N.E. 800, 144 Mass. 184, 1887 Mass. LEXIS 148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wormwood-v-city-of-waltham-mass-1887.