AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 113 words
1.
We are of opinion that the letter of the plaintiff is not a sufficient notice within the meaning of the 433rd Section of the City of Madras Municipal
Act of 1884. It is insufficient because it omits to state the place or street in which the house alleged to be demolished stood, as also the time of the
alleged demolition. Further, the letter does not positively state that an action will be brought. See Breese v. Jerdein 4 Q.B. 585; 12 L.J. Q.B. 234
and Mason v. Birkenhead Improvement Commissioners 6 H. & N. 72.
2.
It is unnecessary to answer the second question.
3.
Barclay, Morgan & Orr: Attorneys for Defendant.