Kelsea v. Manchester
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Petition, upon Gen. Laws, e. 75, s. 9, for leave to file with the defendants’ aldermen a claim for damage caused by a defective highway. The plaintiff’s counsel seasonably filed a claim with the city clerk, but omitted to file a claim with the aldermen because he did not know that the law (c. 65, Laws 1885) required a claim to be filed with any other person than the city clerk. The court granted the petition, and the defendants excepted.
1Opinion of the CourtBingham, J.
The petitioner was not learned in the law, and employed counsel to manage his cause who omitted to file a claim for damages with the aldermen because be did not know that c. 65, Laws, 1885, required such claim to be filed with any other person than the city clerk. The plaintiff’s ignorance of the law was due to no neglect or fault of his, but, being unlearned, he used ordinary care and prudence in employing counsel to file the claim. The case comes within the rule in Bolles v. Dalton, 59 N. H. 479.
Exception overruled.
Doe, C. J., did not sit: the others concurred.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bolles v. DaltonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1879
3Cited by4 opinions
- Harvey v. NorthwoodSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1889
- Boyd v. DerrySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1895
- Simoneau v. Town of EnfieldSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1972
- Dame v. WoodSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1907