Currier v. City of Concord

• Decision Date: 26 July 1895
• Citation: 44 A. 386,68 N.H. 294
• Parties: CURRIER v. CITY OF CONCORD.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

44 A. 386

68 N.H. 294

CURRIER

v. CITY OF CONCORD.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Merrimack.

July 26, 1895.

Case, by Ann Currier against the city of Concord, for injuries caused by a defective highway. Plaintiff nonsuited.

In the statement required by Gen. Laws, e. 75, § 7, which was filed with the city clerk December 28. 1891, the plaintiff states that she was injured December 19, 1891, "while traveling on foot along the sidewalk on the west side of the highway leading from Concord Main street to the village of Penacook, at a point near the entrance to the cemetery, and within the limits of the city of Concord." The question of the sufficiency of the notice was tried by the court, who found, upon evidence not excepted to, that the place of the accident is not stated with such exactness as to enable the city authorities, without further information, to locate it. About May 1, 1892, a hearing was had upon her claim before the committee of the city government on claims. From what she said at that time the committee understood where the exact place of the accident was. She was told that she would hear from the committee, and relied on that assurance. It did not appear that she was informed of the result of the hearing, or that the sufficiency of the notice was questioned by the committee in her hearing.

John P. Bartlett and William A. J. Giles, for plaintiff.

Harry G. Sargent, for defendant.

PER CURIAM. The reported finding is, in effect, that the place of the alleged accident was not so designated in the plaintiff's statement that it could be found, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, by the defendant's officers, without further information from the plaintiff. The statement was, therefore, insufficient. "If the statement so designates the place that the officers of the town, being men of common understanding and intelligence, can, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, and without other information from the plaintiff, find the exact place where it is claimed the damage was received, it is, in this respect, sufficient, because it fully answers the purpose of the statute. Whether, upon the information contained in the statement the place could be found by the exercise of reasonable diligence, is a question of fact, to be determined upon the evidence by the court at the trial term." Carr v. Ashland, 62 N.H. 665, 669. The defendants have not waived their right to the statement required by law. Gen. Laws, c. 75, § 7. The plaintiff claims that...