Page images
PDF
EPUB

the time of her death (Decedent Estate Law | individually and not as a class. Matter of [Consol. Laws, c. 13] § 14), and, according to Kimberly, 150 N. Y. 90, 44 N. E. 945. a well-settled rule, speaks from the time of [5] Costs were properly allowed to defend. the death of testatrix. Nellis v. Nellis, 99 N. ants. Code Cly. Proc. $ 3253, subd. 2; Allen Y. 505, 512, 3 N. E. 59.

V. Stevens, 161 N. Y. 122, 56 N. E. 568. In England by the twenty-fourth section of I recommend that the judgment be afirmed, the Wills Act (7 Wm. IV and 1 Vict. c. 26) it with costs. is provided that: “Every will shall be construed with reference

CUDDEBACK, HOGAN, and CARDOZO, to the real estate and personal estate comprised in it, to speak and take effect as if it had been JJ., concur. WILLARD BARTLETT, O. J., executed immediately before the

death of the tes- and HISCOCK and COLLIN, JJ., dissent. tator unless a contrary intention shall appear in the will.” 28 Halsbury's Laws of England, 691; Saxton v. Saxton, 13 Oh. Div. 359.

Judgment affirmed. The rule has been formulated somewhat differently in this state. A devise of real

(225 Mass. 287) estate, universal in its terms, would carry SMITH V. NEW ENGLAND COTTON after-acquired land without language point

YARN CO. ing to the period of testator's death, but in

(Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. the absence of unlimited terms in the will

Bristol., Nov. 29, 1916.) there must be language which will enable

1. CORPORATIONS 428(3)-KNOWLEDGE AND the court to see that the testator intended it

CONDUCT OF AGENT. to operate upon real estate which he should Where a cotton mill's representative knew, afterwards purchase. Lynes v. Townsend, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should 33 N. Y. 558. That is the canon of construc- bave known, of the absence of a plank covering

a slot in a platform which a railroad employé tion we shall apply. In 1837 Chancellor switching, cars on the premises might use, the Walworth in Pond v. Bergh, 10 Paige Ch. cotton mill was bound by his knowledge and con140, 150, failed to find such language in the duct. will of the testator, who devised all bis “real Cent. Dig. j 1750; Dec. Dig. 428(3).]

(Ed. Note. For other cases, see Corporations, estate lying and being in the county of

2. NEGLIGENCE w 136(18) Schoharie." He said:

QUESTION FOR

JURY. “There is good reason to suppose he means to

In an action by a railroad's employé for inspeak in reference to the lands he has already juries received while switching cars

on the acquired there"

premises of a cotton mill, question whether the -and on this supposed actual intention he mill was negligent in leaving open a fire door

slot' in a platform held for the jury. held that subsequently acquired lands in (Ed. Note. For other cases, see Negligence, Schoharie county did not pass under the Cent. Dig. 88 307, 308, 310, 312; Dec. Dig. clause quoted. But the language of testatrix 136(18).] does enable the court to see what her inten- 3. NEGLIGENCE 122(1)-ACTION FOR INJUtion was. She knew the difference between

RIES-CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE-BURDEN

OF PROOF. the words "one-half" and "all my right, title

A railroad's employé, suing for injuries reand interest," and "all the interest that I ceived while switching cars on the premises of now possess.” If she had limited her devise defendant cotton mill, had the burden to provo

his own due care. to the one-half interest in such premises that she then owned, one-half of the subsequently Cent. Dig. $$ 221, 229, 233, 234; Dec. Õig.

[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Negligence, acquired one-half would have gone from her 122(1).] sister to the Skillinses. She had said in her 4. NEGLIGENCE em 132(1)-ACTION FOB INJUwill that "it is my wish that the homestead in BIES-EVIDENCE. which I now reside shall be retained by some In an action against a cotton mill by a railmember of my family as long as possible." road's employé, injured while switching cars on

its premises, evidence that plaintiff passed to It was more consonant with that wish to the platform where he was injured by the con. give it all to her sister, if she acquired title temporaneous direction of the railroad's freight to the whole before her death, than to leave agent was admissible in explanation of his conone-half of it to be disposed of by the resid-duct and as illustrative of his acts. uary clause. The draftsman of the will, by Cent. Dig. ss 257, 25743, 262; Dec. Dig. Om

(Ed. Note. For other cases, see Negligence, a discriminating use of language, in few but 132(1).] apt words expressed the intention of 'the 5. NEGLIGENCE w 136(27) CONTBIBUTORY testatrix that her sister should take, not only NEGLIGENCE-QUESTION FOR JURY. the one-half interest in the homestead that In a railroad employe's action against a testatrix then owned, but also all the interest cotton mill for injuries received while switching

cars on its premises, question whether plaintiff, she should own therein when she died. by reason of the darkness and his unfamiliarity Quinn v. Hardenbrook, 54 N. Y. 83.

with the surroundings, should have paused and [4] The provisions for S. Amelia Skillin, investigated his footing before, attempting to Florence Skillin Cloyd, Simeon D. Skillin, held for the jury.

pass along the platform where he was injured, and Sarah E. Skillin, in the eighth, ninth, and (Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Negligence, tenth clauses of the will are for the legatees Cent. Dig. $$ 336, 337; Dec. Dig. Om 136(27).)

For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
114 N.E.-23

[ocr errors]

6. NEGLIGENCE 32(2) — INJURIES TO IN- Cas. 1041; Shaw v. Odgen, 214 Mass. 475, 'VITEE. Where a cotton mill asked a railroad to the defendant while familiar with the nature

476, 102 N. E. 61. The jury could find that switch cars on its premises, the railroad's switching conductor, as an invitee, was on the of the work of taking out cars by a switchpremises to perform work, including whatever ing engine, also knew that the operation became reasonably necessary to remove the cars, must be carried on within the limits of the even if it required him to go outside the line of the slot in a platform made for a fire door, spur track located on its own premises, which and, if he was injured by falling into such slot, “had a capacity of three cars outside of the he was injured as an invitee.

building.” It appears, and the jury could [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Negligence, find from the plaintiff's evidence, that the Cent. Dig. 8 43; Dec. Dig. ww 32(2).]

engine had been coupled to three cars stand. Exceptions from Superior Court, Bristol ing "outside,” and when he “motioned for it County; Hugo A. Dubuque, Judge.

to go ahead

the three cars were Action by Thomas F. Smith against the about two or three feet from the fourth or New England Cotton Yarn Company. There lone car standing inside of the building.” was a verdict for plaintiff, and defendant The cars were equipped with automatic “selfexcepts. Exceptions overruled.

couplings,” and this car by its failure to Defendant's fifth request, as modified and unite having been forced further “into the

building," it could have been found that the given, was:

“If the defendant had no reason to anticipate conductor or those in charge, acting with that there was occasion to go back of that fire ordinary care, would endeavor to ascertain door, of course the defendant isn't liable, but “what was on the track back of this car” on that you have a right to consider the layout before making another attempt “to make a of the track, what had been done before, why or how it happened that the car went back. If bitch.” The space between the top of the the difficulty with coupling the car is one of the roof of the cars and the "place in the build. things that are incident to the usual work of ing on which the outside doors run" was not coupling cars then, of course, that might be an

over three feet, while the platform whose ticipated by the defendant."

height corresponded with the level of the floor H. F. Hathaway, of Taunton (J. P. Dunn, of an ordinary freight car extended the entire Jr., and J. E. Warner, both of Taunton, with length of the track. If when the car failed him), for plaintiff. Jennings & Brayton, of to couple, the conductor under the orders Fall River, for defendant.

of the freight agent, his superior, stepped

to the platform to investigate whether the BRALEY, J. [1-6] The jury would have track inside was clear, “before I hit that been warranted in finding, that when injured car again,” his use of the platform as a by falling into the hole, slot or channel in feasible means of communication could be the platform of the defendant's cotton store found to be as natural and probable under house, the plaintiff was in the performance the circumstances, as if the area traversed of his duties as conductor of the switcher had been left open and unoccupied. It is not hauling cars therefrom, by direction of the contended that before he was injured the freight agent of the railroad company his plaintiff knew of the sunken slot or channel employer, who had been requested by the de- twelve inches in width where the fire door fendant to remove the cars on the spur track ran, which if left unguarded the jury could inside the house so that it could run in more cars for use in its business. The duty im- find might make the use of the platform

hazardous to those unacquainted with the posed on the defendant as an invitor under

The uncontradicted evidence of such circumstances was defined in Carleton the defendant's superintendent shows, that

premises. v. Franconia Iron & Steel Co., 99 Mass. 216, when as on the day of the accident the door 217:

remained unclosed, the slot was covered by “The owner or occupant of land is liable in damages to those coming to it, using due care, a moveable plank, the placing of which “was at his invitation or inducement, express or im- the business of the man that was sent to plied, on any business to be transacted with or the storehouse in charge of the gang, to permitted by him, for an injury occasioned by handle this plank; to put it into the slot ;" the unsafe condition of the land or of the access to it, which is known to him and not to and “that at the time of the accident the man them, and which he has negligently suffered to who had charge of the gang that was sent exist and has given them no notice of."

* to the storehouse determined whethThe rule as thus defined has been followed er the cars should be unloaded" on the porin Coombs v. New Bedford Cordage Co., 102 tion of the track inside of the building, “or Mass. 572, 587, 588, 3 Am. Rep. 506; Hart whether they should be unloaded on the outv. Cole, 156 Mass. 475, 31 N. E. 644, 16 L. R. / side." If the defendant's representative A. 557; McNee v. Coburn Trolley Track Co., knew or in the exercise of reasonable dili170 Mass. 283, 284, 49 N. E. 437; Garfield gence should have known of the absence of & Proctor Coal Co. v. Rockport Lime Co., the plank, the defendant is bound by his 184 Mass. 60, 63, 67 N. E. 863, 61 L. R. A. knowledge and conduct. Ruddy v. George 946, 100 Am. St. Rep. 543; Pickwick v. MC- F. Blake Mfg. Co., 205 Mass. 172, 181, 91 Cauliff, 193 Mass. 70, 74, 78 N. E. 730, 8 Ann. | N. E. 310. It could have been further found

[ocr errors]

on the evidence of the freight agent, that, 405, 19 Ann. Cas. 666, and cases cited; Mcwhenever the door was open the plank usual. Leod v. Rawson, 215 Mass. 257, 260, 102 N. ly was in the slot. And the entire evidence E. 429, 46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 547; Gallagher v. if believed was sufficient to convince the jury, Murphy, 221 Mass. 363, 108 N. E. 1081. that not only was the placing and removal The motion to direct a verdict for the deof the plank as well as the opening and fendant, and the fourth, sixth and seventh closing of the door wholly within the super requests were denied rightly for reasons vision and control of the defendant, with previously stated. The fifth request could which the employés of the railroad never in- not have been given in terms. It omitted the terfered, but the use of the platform by train- essential element already pointed out, that men when switching cars had not been for- the plaintiff as an invitee was on the prembidden nor shown to be unreasonable or un- ises to perform work, which included whatnecessary. The evidence of the superintend- ever became reasonably necessary to remove ent being sufficient to justify them in finding the cars, even if this required him to go that the track and platform were concurrent- outside the line of the slot of the fire door. ly used in the prosecution of the defendant's The request as thus modified having been business, of which the switching in and out given, the exceptions should be overruled. of the cars on the entire length of the spur So ordered. track formed a part, it could not be ruled as matter of law that the platform or any

(225 Mass. 273) part of it had been designed or reserved for the exclusive use of the defendant's own

AURINGER et al. v. COCHRANE. employés, over which the plaintiff would pass (Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. at his peril. It was a question of fact whether

Suffolk. Nov. 29, 1916.) a reasonably prudent and careful man famil

1. PARENT AND CHILD 3(1)-LIABILITY FOR iar with his own premises where the work CHILD'S CLOTHING. he requested was to be performed, and the Where a father had supplied and was ready manner and means ordinarily required for its to supply apparel sufficient for his daughter's accomplishment, should have been aware that welfare, and befitting the family's social and

financial position, dressmakers could not recov. the men engaged in moving the cars might er against him for gowns and hats furnished suffer injuries if the plank was not in place. the daughter, which were not necessaries, in the Or if being ignorant of its existence they absence of an express or implied contract on

his part to pay for them. were not warned of the slot in the platform,

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Parent and which if left exposed might make the use Child, Cent. Dig. 88 33-51; Dec. Dig. Ons of the premises in the prosecution of their 3(1).] work unsafe and dangerous. Garfield & 2. PARENT AND CHILD 3(3)-EVIDENCEProctor Coal Co. v. Rockport Lime Co., 184 COMPETENCY. Mass. 60, 63, 67 N. E. 863, 61 L. R. A. 946, furnished defendant's minor daughter, evidence

In dressmakers' action for gowns and hats 100 Am. St. Rep. 543. The plaintiff, however, that when defendant's wife and daughter went had the burden of proving his own due care, to plaintiffs the wife told them her daughter way and the evidence that he passed to the plat- and that defendant would be responsible, was

18, and she desired her to be suitably clothed, form by the cotemporaneous direction of the admissible to show to whom plaintiffs underfreight agent was admissible in explanation stood they gave credit, and in explanation of of his conduct, and as illustrative of his the account, the court having found that plain

tiffs supposed the mother's statement as to the acts. Conklin v. Consolidated Ry., 196 Mass. daughter's age was for plaintiffs' guidance in 302, 306, 82 N. E. 23, 13 Ann. Cas. 857. the selection of the proper styles and kinds of Wigmore on Ev. & 1770. The accident happen- apparel to be ordered. ed in the day time. But on the plaintiff's evi- Child, Cent. Dig. 88 59-62; Dec. Dig. Ow3(3).]

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Parent and dence, which the jury were at liberty to

AGENCY OF follow, the storehouse was unlighted and 3. HUSBAND AND WIFE 23

WIFE FOR HUSBAND-CONTRACT TO PAY FOR quite dark, and never having been there be

CHILD'S CLOTHING. fore he was unfamiliar with the place. The Evidence that when defendant's wife and only light visible to him came through the minor daughter went to dressmakers the wife doorway as he walked down the platform fol- told them that the daughter was 18, that she

desired her to be suitably supplied with clothlowed by the freight agent immediately being, and that her father would be responsible, hind him. While we all agree that the ques- did not show a contract binding on the defendtion of the defendant's negligence was for ant the jury, only a majority of the court are wife, Cent. Dig. 88 142–144; Dec. Dig. Om 23.)

[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Husband and of opinion that whether the plaintiff by reason of the darkness, and his unfamiliarity 4. EVIDENCE 271(19)—SELF-SERVING DEC

LARATIONS-LETTERS. with the surroundings should have paused

In an action by dressmakers for gowns and and investigated his footing before attempt hats furnished defendant's minor daughter puring to pass, was also for their determination, suant to her mother's order, letters written by Hanley v. Boston Elev. Ry., 201 Mass. 55, plaintiffs to defendant, when bills for various

months were sent him, were admissible as state57, 58, 87 N. E. 197; Faxon v. Butler, 206 ments of defendant's contractual relations with Mass. 500, 504, 92 N. E. 707, 138 Am. St. Rep. I plaintiffs, which rested on the statements of de

Ama For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes

THORITY.

fendant's wife, not being self-serving declarar | Benoit, 193 Mass. 233, 236, 79 N. E. 245; tions.

Niles V. Adams, 208 Mass. 100, 103, 94 N. E. [Ed. Note.- For other cases, see Evidence, 285. It did not however show a contract Cent. Dig. 88 1097–1099; Dec. Dig. ew271(19).) binding on the defendant, as the court cor5. HUSBAND AND WIFE em 2342-AGENCY OF rectly ruled. The plaintiffs after a month's WIFE FOR HUSBAND-REPUDIATION OF AU

trading sent to the defendant an itemized Where defendant's wife took his minor bill to which he made no reply. A second daughter to dressmakers and ordered gowns and letter and bill followed including additional hats for her on defendant's credit, if defendant charges for the succeeding month, and no andesired to repudiate, as unauthorized, the pledging of his credit, he was bound to act with swer being received a third letter and bill reasonable promptness when he became aware showing the previous items, as well as chargthat his wife had pledged his credit, and that es for the third month was mailed, and fallthe dressmakers in good faith were acting on ing to obtain any response they then wrote to her representations.

[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Husband and the defendant demanding an answer and setWife, Cent Dig. &$ 144, 147; Dec. Dig. Om tlement. The letters were admissible. They 2342.)

were not under the circumstances self-serving 6. PARENT AND CHILD O3(1)-LIABILITY FOR declarations, but statements of the defendDAUGHTER'S CLOTHING.

ant's contractual relations to them, which Where dressmakers bad a right to assume and did assume that an indebtedness incurred rested on the statements of his wife. Thayer with them for gowns and bats for defendant's v. White, 12 Metc. 343; Foster v. Rockwell, minor daughter was being contracted with his 104 Mass. 167, 171, 172. It is plain that, aftauthority, defendant was liable for the amounter the transactions of the first month for of the indebtedness.

[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Parent and which he was found not to be liable, the deChild, Cent. Dig. 8$ 33-51; Dec. Dig. 3(1).] fendant, as stated in the indings of the Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk

court, bad notice that the plaintiffs were

dealing with his wife and daughter upon County; John A. Aiken, Judge.

Action by Eva A. Auringer and another the implied understanding from his silence against J. Eugene Cochrane. There was find that he would be responsible for the articles ing for plaintiffs, and defendant excepts. furnished. It appears that his fallure to

communicate with them arose from his beExceptions overruled.

lief that his daughter's minority ceased at Warren, Garfield, Whiteside & Lamson, of the age of eighteen years, and from the reBoston (Alex. Whiteside and Cleveland Bige- ception of the first bill two months elapsed low, both of Boston, of counsel), for plain- before his counsel replied disclaiming all re tiffs. W. C. Cogswell, of Boston, for de sponsibility. If the defendant desired to retendant.

pudiate as unauthorized the pledging of his

credit, he was bound to act with reasonable BRALEY, J. [1-6] The plaintiffs are dress- promptness when he became aware of what makers who sue for gowns and hats furnisho had been done, and that the plaintiffs in ed to the defendant's daughter while a mem- good faith were acting upon his wife's repber of his household. It having been found resentations. Foster v. Rockwell, 104 Mass. by the trial court that “neither the goods 167, 172. The finding that the plaintiffs had furnished nor the work done were neces- a right to assume and did assume that the saries, they were not needed for the health indebtedness incurred in the last two months or comfort of the daughter, and the defend. was being contracted with his authority havant had supplied and was ready to supply ing been warranted, the defendant was rightapparel suitable and sufficient for her wel- ly held liable for the amount. Sturtevant v. fare and proper and befitting the family's Wallack, 141 Mass. 119, 4 N. E. 615; Lamsocial and financial position," the plaintiffs son v. Varnum, 171 Mass. 237, 238, 50 N. . cannot recover unless there was evidence of 615. The request that "upon all the evidence an express or implied contract. The evidence the finding should be for the defendant" was that, when the defendant's wife and daughter rightly denied. first went to the plaintiffs, the wife told them

Exceptions overruled. that her daughter was eighteen years of age, and that she desired her to be suitably sup

(225 Mass. 292) plied with clothing, and that her father, the

POWERS REGULATOR CO. v. L. W. defendant, would be responsible for the bills,

TAYLOR & CO. et al. was competent not only for the purpose of

(Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. showing to whom the plaintiffs understood

Bristol. Nov. 29, 1916.) they were giving credit, but in explanation of the account, and the court having found 1. APPEAL AND ERBOR Cw878(5)—REVIEW

SCOPE-ORDERS NOT APPEALED FROM. that they supposed the mother's statement as Parties who did not appeal from an order to the daughter's age was for their guidance overruling exceptions to a master's report, nor in the selection of the proper styles and kinds from the final decree, cannot object to such deof apparel to be ordered, there was no er

(Ed. Note. For other cases, see Appeal and ror in the admission of this evidence. James Error, Cent. Dig. 88 3578, 3579; Dec. Dig. Om V. Spaulding, 4 Gray, 451, 452; Pettey v. 1 878(5).]

cree.

2. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS C347(1)-ME- thorized to contract on behalf of city, a notice,

CHANICS' LIENS-PROCEEDINŐS TO PERFECT addressed by registered letter to their predeces-NOTICE.

sors in office, to the mayor then in office and to Under St. 1904, c. 349, re-enacted in St. the clerk of the committee, was not filed with 1909, c. 514, $ 23, to obtain the benefit of a the proper officers, as required by St. 1909, C bond given to a city by a bonding company as 514, $ 23, although duly received. security for payment by the contractor of the [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Municipal demands of labor and materialmen, every, claim- Corporations, Cent. Dig. $ 876; Dec. Dig. Om ant is required to file with the officers who con: 347(1).] tract on behalf of the city a sworn statement of his claim within 60 days after completion of 8. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION 366, 374(1), the work.

CONTRACTS-BREACH-COMPLETION BY CITY

-RETENTION OF Cost. [Ed. Note-For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. $ 876; Dec. Dig. One of his contract with a municipality, the latter,

Where a contractor fails in the performance 347(1).]

even in the absence of express stipulation in the 3. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS em347(1) contract, may complete the work and deduct the LIENS FOR LABOB AND MATERIAL NOTICE cost from the contract price, and where the OF CLAIM,

bonding company completed such contract, the Under St. 1909, c. 514, $ 23, requiring per- city may pay the reasonable cost to such comsons who furnish labor or material in performpany from the contract price. ance of city contract to file notice of claim with officers who contract in behalf of city, the filing Corporations, Cent. Dig. 88 899, 905, 910; Dec.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, sée Municipal of notice must be with officers actually in office, Dig. cw366, 374(1).] and a filing with former officers is of no avail.

[Ed. Note,-For other cases, see Municipal Appeal from Superior Court, Bristol Corporations, Cent. Dig. $ 876; Dec. Dig. Om County. 847(1).]

Action by the Powers Regulator Company 4. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS 347(1)-ME

CHANICS' LIENS - PROCEEDINGS TO PERFECT against L, W. Taylor & Co. and others. From NOTICE.

the decree of the superior court in equity, Where the mayor and chairman of the com- certain of the defendants appeal. Modified mittee on city property were the officers of the

and affirmed. city empowered to contract in its behalf for the erection of a school building, the filing of labor and material claims with the city clerk, city

M. R. Hitch, of New Bedford, for appellant treasurer, or clerk of the committee is of no Geo. Howard & Sons Co. Robert A. Terry, of effect to proteet the claimant under St. 1909, New Bedford, for appellant Powers Regulator c. 514, 23, requiring such claims to be filed Co. Edward A. Taft and L. R. Chamberlin, within 60 days after the completion of the work with the officers who contracted in behalf of both of Boston, for appellant Richmond Rathe city.

diator Co. C. Harold Baldwin, of Boston, [Ed. Note.- For other cases, see Municipal for appellants Gillette and others. Sumner Corporations, Cent. Dig. $ 876; Dee. Dig. Ons Robinson, of Boston, tor respondent New 347(1).]

England Iron Works Co. A. M. Schwarz and 6. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS Om347(1)-PRO- S. A. Dearborn, both of Boston, for respondCEEDINGS TO PERFECT-NOTICE.

The delivery by the deputy sheriff, acting for ents Jenkins Bros. Gaston, Snow & Salton. a elaimant who furnished labor or material in stall, of Boston (F. W. Bacon, of Boston, of the performance of such contract, to the mayor counsel), for respondent Massachusetts Bondand chairman of the committee, was a sufficient compliance with St. 1909, c. 514, § 23, requiring ing & Ins. Co. claimants, who furnished labor and material in the performance of a city contract to file a sworn statement with the officers who contract

BRALEY, J. (1-8] The exceptions to the in behalf of the city within 60 days after com- master's report having been overruled and pletion of the work.

the report confirmed by the interlocutory de[Ed. Note.- For other cases, see Municipal cree entered with the consent of the parties, Corporations, Cent. Dig. § 876; Dec. Dig. 347(1).)

the rights of the plaintiffs and interveners 6. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS

were left for determination on the pleadings

347(1)-PROCEEDINGS TO PERFECT-NOTICE-"FILE.'

and the findings of the master. While there Under St. 1909, c. 514, § 23, requiring per- were seven claimants who either brought suit sons who furnished labor and material in the or were joined as interveners, the final decree performance of a city contract to file with the officers who contract in behalf of the city a dismissed the bills as to the bonding compasworn statement of such claims within 60 days ny, the contractor, and five of the claimants, after the completion of the work, in order to and the case is before us only on the appeal obtain the benefit of the bond given by the contractor, useless and vain formalities are not of four of the defeated claimants, and the essential, and the word “hile" as there used is trustees in bankruptcy of the contractor, equivalent to the words "give notice” or “serve plaintiffs in a cross bill, asking that the notice."

[Ed. Note.--For other cages, see Municipal amount due under the contract from the city Corporations, Çent. Dig. $ 876; Dec. Dig. Om

be ascertained and payment to them decreed. 347(1).

Masters v. Wayne Automobile Co., 198 Mass. For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, 25, 84 N. E. 103. We shall refer to the conFirst and Second Series, File.]

testing claimants as the appellants. The 7. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS 347(1) master reports that they furnished materials,

-LIENS FOR LABOR AND MATERIAL-NOTICE or labor and materials as subcontractors in OF CLAIM.

Where the mayor and the chairman of com- the erection and completion of the building, mittee on street property were the officers au-l and that the debts due therefor as set forth

wwFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes

« PreviousContinue »