endomorphosis/Caselaw_Access_Project_JSON

1"{\"id\": \"8521118\", \"name\": \"Batchelder v. White\", \"name_abbreviation\": \"Batchelder v. White\", \"decision_date\": \"1907-11-15\", \"docket_number\": \"\", \"first_page\": \"466\", \"last_page\": \"467\", \"citations\": \"28 R.I. 466\", \"volume\": \"28\", \"reporter\": \"Rhode Island Reports\", \"court\": \"Supreme Court of Rhode Island\", \"jurisdiction\": \"Rhode Island\", \"last_updated\": \"2021-08-10T23:56:59.498604+00:00\", \"provenance\": \"CAP\", \"judges\": \"Present: Douglas, C. J., Dubois, Blodgett, Johnson, and Parkhurst, JJ.\", \"parties\": \"Lucinda A. Batchelder vs. J. Ellis White, City Treasurer.\", \"head_matter\": \"Lucinda A. Batchelder vs. J. Ellis White, City Treasurer.\\nNOVEMBER 15, 1907.\\nPresent: Douglas, C. J., Dubois, Blodgett, Johnson, and Parkhurst, JJ.\\nThe giving of the notice of claim to a city council, under Gen. Laws cap. 36, \\u00a7\\u00a7 16,18, is no part of the suit, but is a condition precedent to the right to bring suit.\\nThe allegation in a declaration that such notice has been given is put in issue by the general issue and must be proved to entitle a plaintiff to recover.\\nTrespass on the Case for Negligence.\\nHeard on motion for leave to file a petition for re-argument, and denied.\", \"word_count\": \"291\", \"char_count\": \"1649\", \"text\": \"Per Curiam.\\nAfter the filing of the opinion in this case, November 6r 1907, the plaintiff's counsel moves for leave to file a petition for re-argument, on the ground that the defendant had waived its right to object to the failure of the plaintiff to give legal notice of the claim. The application assumes that the giving of the notice in cases like the present is the commencement of the suit, and hence may be waived like any irregularity in process.\\nUnder our system of practice this assumption is erroneous. As stated in the recent opinion, the giving of the notice is no part of the suit, but is a condition precedent to the right, to bring suit. This well-settled principle is recognized by the plaintiff in this case, who alleges in the declaration that legal notice was given. This allegation, like all the other material statements of the declaration, is put in issue by the general issue and must be proved by the plaintiff to entitle her to recover.\\nHugh J. Carroll, for plaintiff.\\nEdward W. Blodgett, for defendant.\\nThe motion must therefore be denied.\"}"