Legal Opinion

Finnegan v. Lucy

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided December 3, 1892PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.

Under Pub. Sts. c. 100, § 25, the plaintiff must have given “notice in writing, signed by . . . her,” in order to recover. A notice in writing was given bearing her name, but her name was written by another person, at her request and in her presence, she knowing and understanding the contents and object of the notice. The question is, whether this was a good notice.

The defendant chiefly relies upon the rule for the construction of statutes given in Pub. Sts, c. 3, § 3, cl. 25, which is as follows : “ The words ' written ’ and ' 1 in writing ’ may include print*440ing, engraving, lithographing,…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Bartlett v. DrakeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868
  2. Mackay v. BloodgoodNew York Supreme Court · 1812
  3. Videau v. GriffinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
  4. Wellington v. JacksonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
  5. Irvin v. ThompsonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1816

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Derinza's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1918
  2. Irving v. Goodimate Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1946
  3. Porter v. R. J. Boyd Paving & Construction Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1908
  4. State Ex Rel. Hansen v. SchallSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1940
  5. Volpe v. SensatiniMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1924

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API