Grooms v. City of Hawkinsville

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Grooms v. City of Hawkinsville

120 S.E. 807, 31 Ga. App. 424, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 968

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 10, 1923

Docket14527

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 120 S.E. 807 (Grooms v. City of Hawkinsville) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Grooms v. City of Hawkinsville, 120 S.E. 807, 31 Ga. App. 424, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 968 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, 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).” City of Tallapoosa v. Brock, 138 Ga. 622 (1) (75 S. E. 644).

2. “When a number of days is prescribed for the exercise of any privilege, or the discharge of any duty, only the first or last day shall be counted; and if the last day shall fall on the Sabbath, another day shall be allowed in the computation.” Civil Code (1910), §4, par. 8.

3. Where, in a suit for damages against a municipal corporation on account of a personal injury, it appeared from the petition that the claim was first presented to the governing authority of the municipality for ad justment on October 16th next prior to the filing of the suit on November 15th, the action was subject to general demurrer. Only the first or last of these days should be counted; and this being done, the action was commenced before the municipality had been allowed the statutory period of thirty days after the claim had been presented, within which to consider and act upon the same. Eor this reason the petition was properly dismissed. Saunders v. City of Fitzgerald, supra; Williamson v. Mayor &c. of Savannah, 19 Ga. App. 784 (1) (92 S. E. 291); Reid v. Jordan, 56 Ga. 283 (2); Knoxville City Mills Co. v. Lovinger, 83 Ga. 563 (10 S. E. 230).

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Bell, 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).” City of Tallapoosa v. Brock, 138 Ga. 622 (1) (75 S. E. 644).

2. “When a number of days is prescribed for the exercise of any privilege, or the discharge of any duty, only the first or last day shall be counted; and if the last day shall fall on the Sabbath, another day shall be allowed in the computation.” Civil Code (1910), §4, par. 8.

3. Where, in a suit for damages against a municipal corporation on account of a personal injury, it appeared from the petition that the claim was first presented to the governing authority of the municipality for ad justment on October 16th next prior to the filing of the suit on November 15th, the action was subject to general demurrer. Only the first or last of these days should be counted; and this being done, the action was commenced before the municipality had been allowed the statutory period of thirty days after the claim had been presented, within which to consider and act upon the same. Eor this reason the petition was properly dismissed. Saunders v. City of Fitzgerald, supra; Williamson v. Mayor &c. of Savannah, 19 Ga. App. 784 (1) (92 S. E. 291); Reid v. Jordan, 56 Ga. 283 (2); Knoxville City Mills Co. v. Lovinger, 83 Ga. 563 (10 S. E. 230).

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 S.E. 807, 31 Ga. App. 424, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 968, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grooms-v-city-of-hawkinsville-gactapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack