City of Tallapoosa v. Brock

Supreme Court of Georgia

City of Tallapoosa v. Brock

75 S.E. 644, 138 Ga. 622, 1912 Ga. LEXIS 636

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedAugust 19, 1912

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 75 S.E. 644 (City of Tallapoosa v. Brock) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Tallapoosa v. Brock, 75 S.E. 644, 138 Ga. 622, 1912 Ga. LEXIS 636 (Ga. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Lumpkin, J.

1. In bringing suit against a municipal corporation for damages on account of a personal injury, it is necessary to allege a substantial compliance with the Civil Code, § 910, which requires a presentation in writing of such claim to the governing authority of the municipality/for adjustment, stating the time, place, etc., before bringing suit, and allows the municipal authorities thirty days in which to act on the claim. A petition which fails to do this is demurrable. Saunders v. City of Fitzgerald, 113 Ga. 619 (38 S. E. 978); City of Columbus v. McDaniel, 117 Ga. 823 (45 S. E. 59); Langley v. City Council of Augusta, 118 Ga. 590 (45 S. E. 486, 98 Am. St. R. 133).

2. A petition alleged a personal injury resulting from a defect in a sidewalk of a city, and that on a named date á notice was served, a copy of which was set out. It was directed to the mayor and served on him, and merely notified him that the injured person would file suit against the city for the injury (describing it and the time, place, and cause of its occurrence) to a term of the superior court which would convene several months after the date of the notice. Meld, that such a notice merely of an intention to sue the city, directed to the mayor, was not such a presentation of the claim or demand to the governing authorities for adjustment as to meet the requirements of the statute.

3. There was no error in overruling the demurrer on the other grounds thereof. Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Lumpkin, J.

1. In bringing suit against a municipal corporation for damages on account of a personal injury, it is necessary to allege a substantial compliance with the Civil Code, § 910, which requires a presentation in writing of such claim to the governing authority of the municipality/for adjustment, stating the time, place, etc., before bringing suit, and allows the municipal authorities thirty days in which to act on the claim. A petition which fails to do this is demurrable. Saunders v. City of Fitzgerald, 113 Ga. 619 (38 S. E. 978); City of Columbus v. McDaniel, 117 Ga. 823 (45 S. E. 59); Langley v. City Council of Augusta, 118 Ga. 590 (45 S. E. 486, 98 Am. St. R. 133).

2. A petition alleged a personal injury resulting from a defect in a sidewalk of a city, and that on a named date á notice was served, a copy of which was set out. It was directed to the mayor and served on him, and merely notified him that the injured person would file suit against the city for the injury (describing it and the time, place, and cause of its occurrence) to a term of the superior court which would convene several months after the date of the notice. Meld, that such a notice merely of an intention to sue the city, directed to the mayor, was not such a presentation of the claim or demand to the governing authorities for adjustment as to meet the requirements of the statute.

3. There was no error in overruling the demurrer on the other grounds thereof. Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 S.E. 644, 138 Ga. 622, 1912 Ga. LEXIS 636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-tallapoosa-v-brock-ga-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack