Finneran v. Graham
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort under R. L. c. 106, §§ 71, 72, for personal injuries received by the plaintiff while in the defendant’s employ. Writ in the Superior Court for the county of Suffolk dated February 20, 1905. There was a trial before Bond, J., who ruled that it did not appear that the notice required by R. L. c. 106, § 75, was given before the action was commenced, and directed a verdict for the defendant,. The plaintiff excepted.
1Opinion of the CourtSheldon, J.
It is now very properly conceded that there was evidence on which the jury might have found that the plaintiff’s intestate died without having been for ten days at any time after his injury of sufficient capacity to give the notice required by R. L. c. 106, § 75; and the only question is whether it could have been found that the notice was given to the defendant before the action was brought. If this could not *386have been found, the action could not be maintained. The giving of the notice is a condition precedent to the right of action, and must precede the writ. Healey v. Blake Manuf. Co. 180…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Badger v. PhinneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1819
- Gay v. City of CambridgeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
- Veginan v. MorseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1893
- In re RichardsonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1843
- Hammond v. ThompsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1897
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Regan v. Atlantic Refining Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
- Stevenson v. DonnellyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1915
- Greem v. CohenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1937
- Munnss v. American Agricultural Chemical Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1914
- Election Commission v. People ex rel. LeeSupreme Court of Colorado · 1914
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.