Bausher v. City of St. Paul

• Decision Date: 14 June 1898
• Parties: BAUSHER v CITY OF ST. PAUL.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

72 Minn. 539

75 N.W. 745

BAUSHERvCITY OF ST. PAUL.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 14, 1898.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Chapter 248, Laws 1897, requiring notice to cities and villages of the injury for which damages are claimed, is mandatory, and is a condition precedent to a right to maintain an action for such damages; and, unless the notice served states the amount of compensation claimed for the injury, no action can be maintained against the city therefor.

2. Where the claim is for money compensation, it is not sufficient, under this statute, that the notice state the nature of the relief demanded, without stating the amount of compensation claimed.

3. Held, the title of said chapter 248 is sufficient, under section 27, art. 4, of the constitution.

4. Held, the act does not contravene section 33 of said article.

Appeal from district court, Ramsey county; Hascal R. Brill, Judge.

Action by R. G. Bausher against the city of St. Paul. From an order sustaining defendant's demurrer to the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Hubbard & Taylor, for appellant.

Jas. E. Markham and Carl Taylor, for respondent.

CANTY, J.

This is an action to recover damages for a personal injury. Plaintiff, in his complaint, alleges facts from which it appears that on September 29, 1897, while he was walking along on a certain public street in St. Paul, he was injured by reason of the defective and rotten character of the sidewalk on which he was walking, and that the injury occurred by reason of the negligence of the city in failing to keep the sidewalk in repair; that within 30 days thereafter he caused a notice to be served on the city, by handing a copy thereof to the mayor, and another copy thereof to the city clerk of the city. The notice so served is set out as a part of the complaint. The defendant demurred to the complaint on the ground that it does not state a cause of action; and, from an order sustaining the demurrer, plaintiff appeals.

The question raised is whether the notice is sufficient. It is sufficient under section 19, c. 7, Sp. Laws 1885, which merely requires the notice to state “the place where and the time when such injury was received and that the person injured will claim damages of the city for such injury.”

1. But the notice is not sufficient under section 1, c. 248, Laws 1897, which reads as follows: “Before any city, village or borough in this state shall be liable to any person for damages for or on account of any injury or loss alleged to have been the result or suffered by reason of any defect in any *** sidewalk *** the person alleged to have been so injured *** shall give the city or village council or trustees, or other governing body of said city, village or borough, within thirty days of the alleged injury, notice thereof, and shall present his or their claim for compensation to such council or governing body in writing, stating the time when and place where and circumstances under which such alleged loss or injury occurred and the...