Brannon v. City of Birmingham

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtANDERSON, J.
Citation59 So. 63,177 Ala. 419
Decision Date09 May 1912
PartiesBRANNON v. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM.

59 So. 63

177 Ala. 419

BRANNON
v.
CITY OF BIRMINGHAM.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 9, 1912


Appeal from City Court of Birmingham; C. W. Ferguson, Judge.

Action by Mrs. M. E. Brannon against the City of Birmingham for injuries occasioned by a defective street. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

The complaint alleges that on, to wit, the 11th day of June, 1910, while plaintiff was passing along the public highway in the city of Birmingham, Jefferson county, Ala., to wit, Forty-Ninth street, between Tenth and Eleventh avenues, in said city, plaintiff was thrown, or caused to fall and be injured, etc. The complaint was afterwards amended by striking out the words, "Forty-Ninth street, between Tenth and Eleventh avenues," wherever they occurred in the complaint. The evidence of plaintiff showed that the fall occurred between her home and the car line on Tenth avenue, that she lived on the corner of Ninth avenue and Forty-Ninth street, and that the injury occurred on Forty-Ninth street, between Ninth and Tenth avenues. The claim filed stated that Mrs. Brannon claimed from the city the sum of $3,000 as damages, for that on the 11th day of June, 1910, she received personal injuries in and about her head, body, and limbs, by falling into or stepping into a hole or excavation in a certain sidewalk or bridge across, over, or along a certain sidewalk at Forty-Ninth street, between Tenth and Eleventh avenues, in said city, and then follows the list of her damages. At the conclusion of the evidence the court gave the affirmative charge for the defendant at its request.

Allen & Bell, of Birmingham, for appellant.

M. M. Ullman, of Birmingham, for appellee.

ANDERSON, J.

Section 1275 of the Code of 1907 says: "No recovery shall be had against any city or town on a claim for personal injury received unless a sworn statement be filed with the clerk, by the party injured, or his personal representative in case of his death, stating substantially the manner in which the injury was received and the day and time, and the place where the accident occurred, and the damages claimed." Statutes similar to this one have been previously construed by this court wherein it was held that they were designed for the purpose of giving the city authorities an opportunity to investigate and adjust claims made against the city, without the expense of litigation, and that a compliance therewith on the part of the plaintiff was a condition...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 practice notes
  • City of Huntsville v. Goodenrath, 263
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • 9 Febrero 1915
    ...or demand with the city authorities is a prerequisite to the right of bringing a suit thereon and must be averred (Brannon v. Birmingham, 177 Ala. 419, 59 So. 63; New Decatur v. Chappell, 2 Ala.App. 564, 56 So. 764), yet such section has [68 So. 679] no application to the case at bar for th......
  • City of Birmingham v. Young, 6 Div. 250.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 10 Mayo 1945
    ...v. City of Birmingham, 243 Ala. 124, 9 So.2d 299; City of Birmingham v. Jeff, 236 Ala. 540, 184 So. 281; Brannon v. City of Birmingham, 177 Ala. 419, 59 So. 63. The gravamen of count 1 as amended is that, defendant negligently permitted an open ditch about two and one-half feet wide and thr......
  • Stone v. District of Columbia, No. 12638.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 28 Junio 1956
    ...Ill. App. 34, 19 N.E.2d 442 (1939); Johnson v. City of Chisholm, 222 Minn. 179, 24 N.W.2d 232 (1946). 43 Brannon v. City of Birmingham, 177 Ala. 419, 59 So.63 44 Marino v. Town of East Haven. 120 Conn. 577, 182 A. 225, 103 A.L.R. 295 (1935). 45 Schaap v. City of Meriden, 139 Conn. 254, 93 A......
  • City of Birmingham v. Cox, 6 Div. 554.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 28 Febrero 1935
    ...for which suit is brought, is error to reverse. King v. City of Birmingham et al., 225 Ala. 42, 142 So. 78; Brannon v. City of Birmingham, 177 Ala. 419, 59 So. 63; McDougall v. City of Birmingham, 219 Ala. 686, 123 So. 83, 63 A. L. R. 1076; 68 A. L. R. 1537, note; Perrine v. Southern Bituli......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
27 cases
  • City of Huntsville v. Goodenrath, 263
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • 9 Febrero 1915
    ...or demand with the city authorities is a prerequisite to the right of bringing a suit thereon and must be averred (Brannon v. Birmingham, 177 Ala. 419, 59 So. 63; New Decatur v. Chappell, 2 Ala.App. 564, 56 So. 764), yet such section has [68 So. 679] no application to the case at bar for th......
  • City of Birmingham v. Young, 6 Div. 250.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 10 Mayo 1945
    ...v. City of Birmingham, 243 Ala. 124, 9 So.2d 299; City of Birmingham v. Jeff, 236 Ala. 540, 184 So. 281; Brannon v. City of Birmingham, 177 Ala. 419, 59 So. 63. The gravamen of count 1 as amended is that, defendant negligently permitted an open ditch about two and one-half feet wide and thr......
  • Stone v. District of Columbia, No. 12638.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 28 Junio 1956
    ...Ill. App. 34, 19 N.E.2d 442 (1939); Johnson v. City of Chisholm, 222 Minn. 179, 24 N.W.2d 232 (1946). 43 Brannon v. City of Birmingham, 177 Ala. 419, 59 So.63 44 Marino v. Town of East Haven. 120 Conn. 577, 182 A. 225, 103 A.L.R. 295 (1935). 45 Schaap v. City of Meriden, 139 Conn. 254, 93 A......
  • City of Birmingham v. Cox, 6 Div. 554.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 28 Febrero 1935
    ...for which suit is brought, is error to reverse. King v. City of Birmingham et al., 225 Ala. 42, 142 So. 78; Brannon v. City of Birmingham, 177 Ala. 419, 59 So. 63; McDougall v. City of Birmingham, 219 Ala. 686, 123 So. 83, 63 A. L. R. 1076; 68 A. L. R. 1537, note; Perrine v. Southern Bituli......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT