Shallow v. City of Salem
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff on January 20, 1882, by a defect in a highway in the defendant city. Answer, a general denial. Trial in the Superior Court, before Knowlton, J., who ruled that the notice given by the plaintiff to the defendant on January 30,1882, was insufficient, and that the plaintiff could not maintain his action, and ordered a verdict for the defendant; and the plaintiff alleged exceptions. The facts appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtDevens, J.
The notice required by the St. of 1877, c. 234, is a condition precedent to the right to maintain an action against a city or town in cases like the one at bar. It cannot be held that the notice given complied with the provisions of the statute, in stating the place of the injury alleged to have been received by the plaintiff. The injury for which *137the plaintiff sought to recover in fact occurred on the south side of Everett Street, while the notice alleged it to have been “ on the northerly side of Everett Street, about seventy-five or one hundred yards from the corner of Lafayette Street,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Bucher v. Fitchburg RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1881
- Kelley v. Boston & Maine RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1883
- Larkin v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
- Lowe v. Inhabitants of ClintonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1882
- Cronin v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1883
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Hanscom v. Malden & Melrose Gas Light Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1914
- Pittsley v. DavidMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1937
- Wynn v. Board of AssessorsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1932
- Wild v. Boston & Maine RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1898
- Dalton v. City of SalemMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1885
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.