Mixer v. Herrick
Supreme Court of Vermont
Case for negligence. Heard on demurrer to the declaration at the April Term, 1905, Windham County, Powers, J., presiding. Demurrer overruled, declaration adjudged sufficient. Defendant excepted. The declaration is defective in not alleging that defendants had notice of the condition complained of. Osier v. Hinesbury, 44 Vt. 220.
1Opinion of the CourtWatson, J.
This case is here on demurrer to the declaration which is in two counts. The declaration is based upon the negligence of the defendants in permitting the hole in the sidewalk in front of their block and used by them in connection with it on the easterly line of Main Street in the East Village of Brattleboro, to be and continue to be insufficiently and defectively covered. It contains no allegation that the existence of the hole was unlawful, or that it constituted an unauthorized obstruction of the sidewalk and hence a .wrong or a nuisance. There is a distinction between an action for…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Clifford v. . DamNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Babbage v. . PowersNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Jorgensen v. . SquiresNew York Court of Appeals · 1895
- Dickinson v. . the Mayor, Etc., of City of N.Y.New York Court of Appeals · 1883
- Calder v. SmalleySupreme Court of Iowa · 1885
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Ingram's Admrx. v. Rutland RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1913
- Collins v. Estate of CollinsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1932
- Price v. HoldenSupreme Court of Vermont · 1932
- McCarthy's Admr. v. Village of NorthfieldSupreme Court of Vermont · 1913
- Jourdenais v. HaydenSupreme Court of Vermont · 1932