Burnette v. The City of St. Joseph
Decision Date | 22 May 1905 |
Citation | 87 S.W. 589,112 Mo.App. 668 |
Parties | SARAH L. BURNETTE, Respondent, v. THE CITY OF ST. JOSEPH, Appellant |
Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court.--Hon. Henry M. Ramey, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Judgment affirmed.
James M. Wilson, City Counselor, and G. L. Zwick, Assistant City Counselor, for appellant.
The petition alleged that a notice had been served upon the "defendant, city of St. Joseph" and not upon the mayor, and did not allege that the notice stated the character or circumstances of the injury, nor that said notice was verified. Without such a notice, no suit could be maintained, therefore it was necessary both to plead and prove that such a notice had been served upon the mayor of defendant city. R. S. 1899, sec. 5724; Goddard v Lincoln, 11 Munic. Corp. Cases 64, 96 N.W. 273; Pier v Heinrichenhoffen, 52 Mo. 233; 14 Encyc. Pl. & Pr. 1069.
Bart M Lockwood for respondent.
(1) The copy of the notice served upon the mayor was properly admitted. Though the omissions of the notary render the affidavit slightly informal, it would not be just to plaintiff herself to make her suffer thereby. For, in the language of Judge Wagner, "to permit such a thing would be to allow the merest technicality to triumph over justice." Laswell v. Church, 46 Mo. 279; Smith v. Benton, 15 Mo. 371; Grace v. Nesbit, 109 Mo. 16; Crum v. Elliston, 33 Mo.App. 594; Bergesh v. Keivil, 19 Mo. 127; Burnett v. McCluey, 92 Mo. 230; Norton v. Flake, 36 Mo.App. 698; Hazeltine v. Ausherman, 29 Mo.App. 451; Viertel v. Viertel, 99 Mo.App. 710; Musgrave v. Mott, 90 Mo. 107; Henderson v. Drace, 30 Mo. 362; Silver v. Railroad, 21 Mo.App. 51; Chevallier v. Williams, 2 Texas 239; Loeb v. Smith, 78 Georgia 504; Noble v. U. S. Dev. Ct. of Cl., 83; State v. Railway, 17 Nev. 259; Jamison v. Beecher, 4 Ab. Pr. (N. Y.) 230; Fairbanks v. Lorig, 4 Ind.App. 451; Merrielles v. Bank, 5 Texas App. 483; authorities supra. (2) An affidavit made in good faith and reasonably sufficient should be held good. 1 Ency. Plead. & Prac., p. 320; Haight v. Arnold, 48 Mich. 512.
Action for damages for personal injuries resulting from a fall alleged to have been caused by a defective sidewalk. Plaintiff recovered judgment.
Defendant objects to the sufficiency of the notice given by plaintiff pursuant to section 5724, Revised Statutes 1899. The record shows the notice was served upon the mayor in the time prescribed but defendant says it should not have been received in evidence over its objection because of the failure of plaintiff to allege in the petition that it was served upon that officer, the allegation being that the service was upon the defendant city. There is no merit in this contention. The object of the requirement that the mayor be served is to reach the defendant city, and an averment of service upon the city will support the admission of evidence showing service upon the proper officer. The notice was as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial