Hignett v. Inhabitants of Norridgewock
Decision Date | 26 February 1909 |
Citation | 105 Me. 189,73 A. 1086 |
Parties | HIGNETT v. INHABITANTS OF NORRIDGEWOCK. |
Court | Maine Supreme Court |
(Official.)
On Motion from Supreme Judicial Court, Somerset County.
Action by Joseph B. Hignett against the Inhabitants of Norridgewock. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant moves to set the same aside. Motion overruled. Judgment on verdict.
Action on the case to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff while riding horseback along a townway in the defendant town by reason of his horse stepping into a hole in the traveled part of the way. Plea, the general issue. Verdict for plaintiff for $441.67. The defendants then filed a general motion to have the verdict set aside.
The case is stated in the opinion.
The declaration in the plaintiff's writ is as follows:
Argued before EMERY, C. J., and WHITE-HOUSE, CORNISH, KING, and BIRD, JJ.
Forest Goodwin, for plaintiff.
Le Roy R. Folsom and Augustine Simmons, for defendant.
KING, J. Action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff while riding horseback along a townway in the defendant town by reason of his horse stepping into a hole in the traveled part of the way. The case is before this court on defendant's motion to set aside a verdict for the plaintiff.
1. The first, and perhaps chief, contention in support of the motion is that the plaintiff's proof located the alleged defect at another and different place in the way than that described as its location in the required written notice to the town after the accident.
The language of the written notice, as to the location of the defect, is: The record discloses the following facts and conditions:
The accident occurred at a culvert crossing the road between two hills—that on the north called Yoe Hill, and that on the south Hignett's Hill. These hills are neither very steep nor long. From the place of the accident to the top of Hignett's Hill is stated to be 753 feet, and to the top of Yoe Hill about 300 feet. There are two other culverts crossing the road at or near the bottom of these hills—one 213 feet north, and the other 203 feet south of this culvert.
It seems a fair conclusion from all the evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bolen-Darnell Coal Co. v. Rogers
... ... 463, ... 37 N.W. 813; Crites v. New Richmond, 98 ... Wis. 55, 73 N.W. 322; Hignett v. Inhabitants of ... Norridgewock, 105 Me. 189, 73 A. 1086; Dempsey ... v. Rome, 94 Ga. 420, 20 ... ...
-
Creedon v. Inhabitants of Town of Kittery
...and in fact the defect was not at the place indicated by the notice, but at a point some distance therefrom. See, also, Hignett v. Norridgewock, 105 Me. 189, 73 Atl. 1086, Beverage v. Rockport, 106 Me. 223, 76 Atl. 677, and York v. Athens, 99 Me. 82, 58 Atl. Second, that the notice does not......
-
Bolen Darnall Coal Co. v. Rogers
...779; Cantwell v. Appleton, 71 Wis. 463, 37 N. W. 813; Crites v. City of New Richmond, 98 Wis. 55, 73 N. W. 322; Hignett v. Inhabitants of Norridgewock, 105 Me. 189, 73 Atl. 1086; Dempsey v. City of Rome, 94 Ga. 420, 20 S. E. 335; McQuillan v. City of Seattle, 10 Wash. 464, 38 Pac. 1119, 45 ......
-
Beverage v. Inhabitants of Rockport
...no other derrick on either road. It distinguished the highway on which the obstruction was located as clearly as in Hignett v. Norridgewock, 105 Me. 189, 73 Atl. 1086, the large "hole in the traveled part of the road" distinguished the middle culvert from the northerly With respect to the n......