Rye v. Durham
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Petition, for leave to file a statement of claim for injuries under P. S., c. 76, ss. 8, 9. The court found that the plaintiff failed to file his claim within the statutory period by reason of his ignorance of the statutory requirement. The petition was granted. The defendants excepted to the denial of their motion that the petition be dismissed, and to the decree granting the petition. Transferred by Allen, J., from the September term, 1917, of the superior court.
Read the full summary
Petition, for leave to file a statement of claim for injuries under P. S., c. 76, ss. 8, 9. The court found that the plaintiff failed to file his claim within the statutory period by reason of his ignorance of the statutory requirement. The petition was granted. The defendants excepted to the denial of their motion that the petition be dismissed, and to the decree granting the petition. Transferred by Allen, J., from the September term, 1917, of the superior court. The facts sufficiently appear from the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtPlummer, J.
The defendants’ exceptions raise the questions whether the petitioner was unavoidably prevented from filing the statutory statement within the time limited, and whether manifest injustice would be done if he were not allowed to file it later. P. S., c. 76, s. 9.
We do not understand that the defendants contend that the plaintiff was not unavoidably prevented from filing the required notice. But their contention is that the accident did not happen upon a bridge, therefore that the plaintiff can have no claim against the defendants, and hence the petition should be dismissed. If it were clear…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Prichard v. BoscawenSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1916
- Knight v. HaverhillSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1915
- Owen v. DerrySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1902
- Wilson v. BarnsteadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1906
- Welsh v. FranklinSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1900
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Bridgham v. EffinghamSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1933