Anderson v. San Joaquin County

• Decision Date: 03 May 1950
• Citation: 97 Cal.App.2d 330,217 P.2d 479
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: ANDERSON et al. v. SAN JOQUIN COUNTY. Civ. 7716.

Page 479

217 P.2d 479

97 Cal.App.2d 330

ANDERSON et al. v. SAN JOQUIN COUNTY.

Civ. 7716.

District Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

May 3, 1950.

Hoberg & Finger, San Francisco, for appellants.

Gilbert L Jones, Daniel S. Lane, Roy A. Weaver and Richard B. Daley, Stockton, Blewett, Blewett & Macey, Stockton, Frederick L. Felton, Stockton, for respondent.

ADAMS, Presiding Justice.

This action was brought by the surviving widow and children of Walter Anderson who was killed in an automobile accident alleged to have been due to the defective condition of a county road which caused the automobile driven by decedent to skid and then collide with an approaching truck. Plaintiffs' amended complaint alleged that claims for damages had been served upon and filed with defendant county 'in the manner and form required by law.' This allegation was first admitted by defendant, but subsequently, with leave of court, defendant amended its answer, denying it. By stipulation this defense was first submitted to the trial court for determination, and that court found that the claims were defective in that they failed to specify the addresses of the claimants or any of them, in conformity with section 1 of Act 1549, Deering's Gen.Laws, p. 1678, and section 53053 of the Government Code.

It is conceded that nowhere in the body of the claims were such addresses stated. However, each page of the claims bore the printed names and addresses of attorneys as follows: 'Hawkins & Hawkins, Attorneys at Law, Modesto, California, Phone 3232'; and each claim bore evidence of verification before Lewis N. Hawkins, Notary Public, in Stanislaus County, a member of the firm of Hawkins & Hawkins. Also it was stipulated by the attorneys for the respective parties that Hawkins & Hawkins were the attorneys for plaintiffs and acted as such from the time of the filing of the claims and up to and until the time the complaint was filed.

The sole question for our determination then is whether the claims as filed substantially comply with the statutory requirement that they contain the addresses of the claimants.

In Stewart v. City of Rio Vista, 72 Cal.App.2d 279, 281, 164 P.2d 274, 275, we held that though a claim did not, in the body thereof, set forth the addresses of the claimants, there was sufficient compliance where the verification of the claim, made by attorney for plaintiffs, stated that affiant was an attorney at law and had his office in Vacaville, Solano County, California. We there said that 'The verification is a necessary part of the claim required by the statute. Since the verification of the claim in this case contains the name and business address of the attorney of the claimant, where the claimant may readily be located it would appear to be a substantial compliance with the statute in that regard.' We cited Uttley v. City of Santa Ana, 136 Cal.App. 23, 25, 28 P.2d 377, and Ridge v. Boulder Creek etc. School Dist., 60 Cal.App.2d 453, 457, 140 P.2d .90, in which cases it was said that the purpose of the statute would seem to be accomplished if an address is given at which or through which the claimant may be found, in order that the officials of defendant may make such investigation of the merits of the claim...