Buck v. City of Biddeford
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On report. The plaintiff sought, in this action, to recover damages for injuries to his horse, received on Sunday, the 26th of December 1886, by reason of a defect in Elm street, in the city of Biddeford.
Read the full summary
On report. The plaintiff sought, in this action, to recover damages for injuries to his horse, received on Sunday, the 26th of December 1886, by reason of a defect in Elm street, in the city of Biddeford. The defect and injury described in the plaintiff’s notice of claim, were as follows: “My horse stepped upon the grate, crossing the cesspool, at said place, the bars of said grate being so far apart that the horse’s foot was wedged between them in such a way that, in endeavoring to extricate it from said grate, the hoof was thrown from the foot, rendering said horse wholly useless. The…
1Opinion of the CourtWalton, J.
As the plaintiff was driving along one of the streets of the city of Biddeford, his horse’s foot slipped into the grating covering a cesspool, and the horse was thereby thrown down and so badly injured that it was necessary to kill him. The plaintiff claims that the city is liable for the value of his horse. The city denies its liability.
1. The accident occurred on Sunday. And it is claimed that on this account the plaintiff is precluded from recovering. We think not. It is true that all unnecessary travelling on the Lord’s day is prohibited. So are all other kinds of worldly business. And it…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Crosman v. City of LynnMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
3Cited by8 opinions
- Gerretson v. Rambler Garage Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1912
- Benedict v. Union Agricultural SocietySupreme Court of Vermont · 1902
- Chadwick v. StokesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1947
- Thorbjohnson v. Rockland-Rockport Lime Co., Inc.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1973
- Herrick v. StateSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1963
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.