Bradbury v. Inhabitants of Benton
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
... On exceptions, and motion. Action on the case to recover for personal injuries, alleged to have been received December 13, 1875, on account of a defect in a highway which the defendant town was bound to keep in repair. Ad damnum, $5,000. Date of writ January 21, 1876. Plea, general issue and brief statement that the way described in plaintiff’s writ was never legally established, and defendants were not bound to repair or maintain the same.
Read the full summary
... On exceptions, and motion. Action on the case to recover for personal injuries, alleged to have been received December 13, 1875, on account of a defect in a highway which the defendant town was bound to keep in repair. Ad damnum, $5,000. Date of writ January 21, 1876. Plea, general issue and brief statement that the way described in plaintiff’s writ was never legally established, and defendants were not bound to repair or maintain the same. The verdict was for the plaintiff, the damages being assessed in the sum of $840.00. Thereupon the defendants moved to set aside the verdict and that…
1Opinion of the CourtLibbey, J.
Exceptions are taken to the rulings of the presiding judge on three points.
I. As to the sufficiency of the notice by the plaintiff to the town after the injury. The notice was in writing, and the judge instructed the jury that it was sufficient. It is claimed that this instruction was erroneous:(1). Because the notice was not expressed in the English language. The injury specified is to the “ periosteum of the tibia.” The words “periosteum” and “tibia” have become Anglicized, and are now used as English words. They are found in the English dictionaries now in use.
*197(2) . Because it was revoked.…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Treadwell v. WhittierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Cumberland Tel'p & Tel'g Co. v. OverfieldCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1907
- County of Bibb v. HamSupreme Court of Georgia · 1900
- Lindquist v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1912
- Sigel v. Portland Ry. L. & P. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1913
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.