Home/Supreme Court of Georgia/Saunders v. City of Fitzgerald

Saunders v. City of Fitzgerald

38 S.E. 978, 113 Ga. 619, 1901 Ga. LEXIS 329
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedMay 25, 1901
StatusPublished
Cited by28 cases

This text of 38 S.E. 978 (Saunders v. City of Fitzgerald) 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
Saunders v. City of Fitzgerald, 38 S.E. 978, 113 Ga. 619, 1901 Ga. LEXIS 329 (Ga. 1901).

Opinion

Simmons, C. J.

The act of December 20, 1899, requires, as a condition precedent to any suit upon a claim for money damages against a municipal corporation on account of injuries to person or property, that the claim shall be presented for adjustment to the municipal authorities. The act further provides that the municipal authorities shall have thirty days from the time of such presentation within which to consider and act upon such claim, and suspends the running of the statute of limitations during the time the claim is pending before such authorities without action on their part. In the present case the original petition made no allegation whatever that the claim had been presented to the municipal authorities. It therefore set out no cause of action. The amendment offered alleged that the claim had been presented before suit was brought, and that the municipal authorities had failed and neglected for more than thirty days to act upon it; but there was no allegation that the claim was presented more than thirty days before the suit was brought. So far as appears from the allegations made, the claim may have been presented to the municipal authorities on one day and suit brought on the next. The act contemplates that suit shall not be brought until after the municipal authorities have acted upon the claim, or have failed to take action thereon within thirty days. The amendment was therefore itself faulty, and was insufficient to perfect the original petition. The trial judge did not err in refusing to allow the amendment or in sustaining the demurrer to the petition.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.

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

Related

Simon v. City of Atlanta
650 S.E.2d 783 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2007)
Atlanta Taxicab Co. Owners Ass'n v. City of Atlanta
638 S.E.2d 307 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2006)
Information Systems and Networks Corp. v. The City of Atlanta, Herbert L. McCall
281 F.3d 1220 (Eleventh Circuit, 2002)
Woodall v. City of Villa Rica
513 S.E.2d 525 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1999)
City of Chamblee v. Maxwell
452 S.E.2d 488 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1994)
Jones v. City of Austell
305 S.E.2d 653 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1983)
Albert T. Ehlers v. City of Decatur, Georgia
614 F.2d 54 (Fifth Circuit, 1980)
Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. R. D. C., Inc.
334 F. Supp. 1163 (N.D. Georgia, 1971)
Schaefer v. Mayor &C. of Athens
170 S.E.2d 339 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1969)
City of Atlanta v. Frank
170 S.E.2d 265 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1969)
City of Gainesville v. Moss
134 S.E.2d 547 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1963)
Thompson v. City of Atlanta
132 S.E.2d 188 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1963)
Pettaway v. City of Albany
125 S.E.2d 568 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1962)
City of Atlanta v. Barrett
116 S.E.2d 654 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1960)
Jones v. City Council of Augusta
110 S.E.2d 691 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1959)
City of Rome v. Rigdon
16 S.E.2d 902 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1941)
City of Lafayette v. Rosser
185 S.E. 377 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)
City of Atlanta v. Blackmon
178 S.E. 467 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
Newton v. City of Moultrie
141 S.E. 322 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1928)
Grooms v. City of Hawkinsville
120 S.E. 807 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
38 S.E. 978, 113 Ga. 619, 1901 Ga. LEXIS 329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saunders-v-city-of-fitzgerald-ga-1901.