Jones v. City of Birmingham

92 So. 898, 207 Ala. 48, 1921 Ala. LEXIS 363

• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama
• Decided: December 22, 1921
• Docket: 6 Div. 592.
• Status: Published

Opinion

THOMAS, J.

The apxieal is upon the record, after nonsnit taken. The judgment entry and bill of exceptions shows that plaintiff deemed it had become necessary, and suffered a nonsuit for and on account of the “ruling of the court in sustaining defendant’s * * * demurrers to the plaintiff’s complaint as amended,” and by bill of exceptions reserved “for the decision of the Supreme Court of Alabama the said ruling or decision of said court.” Paterson & Edey Lumber Co. v. Bank of Mobile, 203 Ala. 536, 84 South. 721, 10 A. L. R. 1037.

It is admitted that, if statutory compliance is apxfiicable, presentation of claim for personal injury, such as averred, against a municipality, is a condition precedent to re- eoyery. Acts 1915, pp. 297, 298, §§ 10, 12. Appellant insists that such statute floes not apply to an injury, the proximate result of that nuisance described in the complaint. After a re-examination of the question presented by demurrer in the instant case, we are of opinion that the decision in Birmingham v. Prickett (Ala. Sup.) 92 South. 7, 1 has application and supports the ruling of the trial court. • No good reason is found in the statute or decisions of this and other courts causing us to depart from the former ruling.

Affirmed.'

All the Justices concur.

1 Post, p. 79.