Merrill v. Paige
Decision Date | 28 February 1918 |
Citation | 229 Mass. 511,118 N.E. 862 |
Parties | MERRILL v. PAIGE (two cases). |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Report from Superior Court, Essex County; George A. Sanderson, Judge.
Actions of tort by Katherine D. Merrill and by Charles W. Merrill, husband and wife, against Edward W. Paige. There was verdict for the wife for $500, and for the husband for $150, and defendant excepted. On report to the Supreme Judicial Court. Judgment ordered entered on the verdict in each case.
M. L. Sullivan and J. J. Ronan, both of Salem, for plaintiffs.
Peabody, Arnold, Batchelder & Luther, of Boston, for defendant.
The female plaintiff, hereafter called the wife, received injuries by falling upon ice on the sidewalk in front of a block owned by the defendant. There was evidence that this ice was caused by water collected by a spout on the building of the defendant and discharged within six or eight inches of the sidewalk, whither it flowed and froze. The defendant might have been found responsible for this condition. Field v. Gowdy, 199 Mass. 568, 85 N. E. 884,19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 236.
The defendant called upon the wife on the day after her injury. There then was conversation respecting the time, place and extent of her injury. The defendant received on December 26, 1916, a communication bearing that date (signed by the husband, who is the other plaintiff), of this tenor:
Both plaintiffs rely upon this as a statutory notice.
It is not necessary to decide whether this would have been a sufficient notice under Grebenstein v. Stone & Webster Engineering Co., 209 Mass. 196, 95 N. E. 503, and McNamara v. Boston & Maine R. R., 216 Mass. 506, 104 N. E. 285, because since the decision of those cases the pertinent statute law has been changed. One receiving injury from snow or ice upon a way adjoining premises of a landowner, who has tortiously caused it to be there, must give a written notice as a condition precedent to any right of recovery against such landowner. Baird v. Baptist Society, 208 Mass. 29, 94 N. E. 296. It is enacted by St. 1913, c. 324, which is an amendment of St. 1908, c. 305, R. L. c. 51, §§ 20, 22, and re-enacting those sections as amended, that:
‘The provisions of sections twenty, twenty-one and twenty-two of chapter fifty-one of the Revised Laws, in so far as they relate to notices of injuries resulting from snow or ice, shall apply’ to cases like the present.
There is no express reference among these words to amendments to the designated sections occurring after St. 1908, c. 305. Section 21, however, had been amended prior to 1913 in a material particular by St. 1912, c. 221. The form of that amendment was in these words:
Then follows section 21 in its complete form as amended, including both the words theretofore composing it and those newly added by the amendment. The section in its previous form thereafter ceased to exist altogether as a statute. It became embodied as a part of a new...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Blanchard v. Stone's, Inc.
...notice in some way ought to have named or described the tenant in order to be the foundation of an action against it.’ Merrill v. Paige, 229 Mass. 511, 118 N.E. 862;Stefani v. Freshman, 232 Mass. 354, 122 N.E. 293. The negligent maintenance over the public way of a sign that would collect s......
-
Putnam v. Savage
...its range, it survives; otherwise it must abate. Wheel-wright v. Tax Commissioner, 235 Mass. 584, 585, 127 N. E. 523;Merrill v. Paige, 229 Mass. 511, 118 N. E. 862;Brooks v. Fitchburg & Leominster Street Railway Co., 200 Mass. 8, 17, 86 N. E. 289;White v. United States, 191 U. S. 545-554, 2......
-
Commonwealth v. Slocum
...The ordinance of 1916, as amended in 1917, constitutes a single statutory entity and is to be construed as a whole, Merrill v. Paige, 229 Mass. 511, 118 N. E. 862, 863. [9] The ordinance regulates in considerable detail the method of applying for licenses and the information to be set forth......
-
State St. Trust Co. v. Crocker
...the indenture whether amended or not. References to statutes have been held to refer to those statutes as amended. Merrill v. Paige, 229 Mass. 511, 513, 514, 118 N.E. 862;Farrell v. State, 54 N.J.L. 421,25 Vroom 421,24 A. 725. Nor do we think that the use of the words ‘at any time’ in the s......