Roberts v. Inhabitants of Town of Limington

• Decision Date: 12 July 1924
• Citation: 125 A. 925
• Parties: Ernest H. ROBERTS v. INHABITANTS OF TOWN OF LIMINGTON.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

125 A. 925

Ernest H. ROBERTS

v. INHABITANTS OF TOWN OF LIMINGTON.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

July 12, 1924.

Exceptions and Motion from Supreme Judicial Court, York County, at Law. Argued before CORNISH, C. J., and PHILBROOK, DUNN, MORRILL, WILSON, and DEASY, JJ.

Willard & Ford, of Sanford, for plaintiff. Elias.

Smith, of Limerich, for defendants.

PER CURIAM. In this action, brought to recover for damages to a portable engine, alleged to be due to a defective highway bridge, it is conceded that the plaintiff's verdict should be sustained if the 14-day notice was given in conformity to R. S. c. 24, § 92. A notice was seasonably given. Admittedly it was in other respects sufficient, but it contained no specification of the nature of the damage to the engine. This the defendant contends is a fatal defect. The reasoning of the defendant's learned counsel is plausible and forceful. The language of the statute is not entirely clear. But the question at issue has been by this court settled adversely to the defendant by the case of Creedon v. Kittery, 117 Me. 541, 105 Atl. 124. We perceive no sufficient reason for overruling the opinion in that case. Motion and exceptions overruled.