Wormwood v. City of Waltham
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff on January 15, 1886, by reason of an alleged defect in a sidewalk in one of the streets of the city of Waltham. Answer, a general denial.
Read the full summary
Tort for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff on January 15, 1886, by reason of an alleged defect in a sidewalk in one of the streets of the city of Waltham. Answer, a general denial. Trial in the Superior Court, before Thompson, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows: The plaintiff testified that on January 80, 1886, she signed a certain paper, which contained a notice to the city of the time, place, and cause of her injury, and handed it to her sister, who delivered it to one Weeks, a member of the board of aldermen of said city, and asked him to deliver the…
1Opinion of the Court
Bv the Court.
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…
2Cited by6 opinions
- O'Connell v. City of CambridgeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1927
- Ernestine Hirshfeld, of the Estate of Sam H. Hirshfeld v. District of ColumbiaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1958
- Powers v. City of BoulderSupreme Court of Colorado · 1913
- Estabrook v. City of SomervilleMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1996
- Director of the Division of Water Pollution Control v. Town of UxbridgeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1972
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.