Merrill v. Paige

Decision Date28 February 1918
Citation229 Mass. 511,118 N.E. 862
PartiesMERRILL v. PAIGE (two cases).
CourtUnited 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.

RUGG, C. J.

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:

‘Mr. Edward P.-Dear Sir: My wife fell on the sidewalk in front of a building owned by you on Market street, Monday morning, Dec. 18, 1916, and injured herself and is now under the care of a doctor. The fall was caused by the icy condition of the sidewalk. Respectfully yours.’

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, amending 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:

Section 1. Section twenty-one of chapter fifty-one of the Revised Laws, as amended by section one of chapter one hundred and sixty-six of the Acts of the year nineteen hundred and ten, is hereby further amended by adding at the end thereof the words: Any form of written communication signed by the person so injured, or by some person in his behalf, or by his executor or administrator, or by some person in behalf of such executor or administrator, which contains the information that the person was so injured, giving the time, place and cause of the injury or damage, shall be considered a sufficient notice-so as to read as follows: Section 21.’

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
23 cases
  • Blanchard v. Stone's, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • December 29, 1939
    ...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
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • March 2, 1923
    ...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
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • May 24, 1918
    ...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
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • June 18, 1940
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT