Whittaker v. Inhabitants of West Boylston
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort for an injury alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff by reason of a defect in a highway which the defendants were bound to keep in repair.
Read the full summary
Tort for an injury alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff by reason of a defect in a highway which the defendants were bound to keep in repair. At the trial in the superior court, before Lord, J., it appeared that the defect was a pile of dirt, about six rods long and from one to three feet high, covering a portion of the travelled track ; that it had existed for more than two years, and lay within sixty rods of the dwelling-house of the plaintiff, who had known of .its existence ever since it was created, and had passed it about sunset on the evening of the accident. Full…
1Opinion of the CourtBigelow, C. J.
The numerous authorities cited by the plaintiff’s counsel show that the point of law on which the defendants relied in support of their motion for a new trial is untenable. But if it were otherwise, they cannot avail themselves of a point of law not raised at the trial as a ground of setting aside the verdict on a motion for a new trial. Kidney v Richards, 10 Allen, 419. Doyle v. Dixon, ante, 213.
Judgment on verdict.
2Cited by30 opinions
- Peterson v. HopsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940
- Looney v. McLeanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
- Wheeler v. Town of WestportWisconsin Supreme Court · 1872
- Swoboda v. WardMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
- Pyke v. City of JamestownNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1906
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.