Greenleaf v. Inhabitants of Norridg-Wock

• Decision Date: 21 June 1889
• Citation: 82 Me. 62,19 A. 91
• Parties: GREENLEAF v. INHABITANTS OF NORRIDG-WOCK.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

19 A. 91

82 Me. 62

GREENLEAF

v. INHABITANTS OF NORRIDG-WOCK.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

June 21, 1889.

Exceptions from supreme judicial court, Somerset county.

Action by Stephen D. Greenleaf against inhabitants of Norridgwock, for damages caused by defect in the highway in Norridgwock, sustained August 26, 1885. On the 2d day of September following, the plaintiff sent to the municipal officers of the defendant town the following written notice, which was seasonably received by them:

"Starks, Sept. 2d, 1885.

"Gents: In consequence of a defect in the highways in your town, I was hove from my carriage about one week ago, and got a severe injury, breaking one rib and injuring another, besides injuring my shoulder. I demand something in the shape of damage. I do not wish to be hard with you, and trust you will be willing to do the honest thing with me without going into litigation. Hoping to hear from you soon, I am,

"Yours, truly, S. D. GREENLEAF."

The court ordered a nonsuit, to which plaintiff excepts.

H. L. Whitcomb and S. H. Willard, for plaintiff. E. Low, for defendants.

WALTON, J. A statute of this state declares that no action shall be maintained against a town for an injury caused by a defect in one of its highways, unless the person injured shall within 14 days thereafter notify the municipal officers of the town in writing, setting forth his claim for damages, and specifying the nature of his injuries, and "the nature and location of the defect which caused such injury." Rev. St. c. 18, § 80. No such notice was given in this case. A notice was given stating that, "in consequence of a defect in the highways in the town," the plaintiff was thrown from his carriage and injured. But the notice does not specify the nature of the location of the defect. In these particulars the notice is fatally defective. The court below so ruled, and ordered a nonsuit. The ruling was correct. The statute is not directory merely; it is mandatory. Such a notice as the statute mentions must not only be given, but it must be averred in the writ and proved at the trial, or the action cannot be maintained. Low v. Windham, 75 Me. 113, and cases there cited.

Exceptions overruled.

PETERS, C. J., and DANFORTH, VIRGIN, LIBBEY, FOSTER, and HASKELL, JJ., concurred.