Chancey v. County Couet.
| Decision Date | 22 March 1902 |
| Citation | 51 W.Va. 252 |
| Parties | Chancey v. County Couet. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
An action in case for damages for injury to persons or property against a county court under section 53, chapter 43, Code, may he maintained without first presenting a claim or demand therefor to the county court, under section 40, chapter 39, Code. (P 253).
Syl. pt. 2, Shreivsbury v. Miller, 10 W. Va. 115, and Syl. pts. 2 and 3 in Ruffners v. Hill, 31 W. Va. 428, approved, (p. 254).
Error to Circuit Court, Eoane County.
Action by Theodosia Chancey and G. H. Chancey against the county court of Eoane County. Verdict for defendant was set aside, and it brings error.
Affirmed.
Vandale & Staekey., for plaintiff in error. W. H. Bishop, for defendants in error.
Theodosia Chancey and G. H. Chancey, her husband, brought their action of trespass on the case in the circuit court of Roane County against'the county court of said county for damages for a personal injury sustained by said Theodosia by being thrown from her horse in crossing a culvert or small bridge on the public road, the same being so out of repair as to cause her horse to break through whereby she received severe personal injuries. The defendant demurred to the declaration, which demurrer was overruled and the defendant excepted. The defendant entered the general plea of "not guilty" and tiled a special plea averring that the plaintiff's injury set out in the declaration was the immediate result of her own negligence. A jury was impaneled which after hearing the evidence returned a verdict for the defendant, when plaintiffs moved the court to set aside the verdict because contrary to the law and the evidence and grant the plaintiffs a new trial, which motion was sustained and a new trial granted. The defendant obtained a writ of error.
The demurrer was based upon the ground that the action could not be maintained against the county court for the recovery of any sum of money due from such county court upon any claim or demand except it be an order on the county treasury, until such claim or demand had been presented to and disallowed, in whole or in part, by the court, or until an itemized account or statement thereof had been filed with the clerk of such court and the court had refused or neglected to act thereon to the close of the second session next after it: was so filed with the clerk, or to the close of the first session thereof next after it was presented to the county court, and in support of this contention counsel for defendant cite Chapman v. County Court, 27 W. Va. 496. It is there held that "No suit can be maintained against the county court of any county for the recovery of any sum of money due from such county founded on contract, except an order on the county treasury, until such claim or demand had been presented to and disallowed in whole or in part by such county court," etc., as provided in section 41, chapter 39, Code. And it is insisted by plaintiff in error that unless such averments of presentation and disallowance of such claim substantially appear on the face of the declaration it is for that cause demurrable and the declaration in this case, not containing such averments, is bad on demurrer and that the court erred in not sustaining the same. This action is brought under section 53, chapter 43 of the Code which provides: "Any person who sustains an injury to his person or property by reason of a public road or bridge in a county * * * being out of repair, may recover all damages sustained by him by reason of such injury in an action on the case in any court of competent jurisdiction against the county court," This is an independent provision and it is not contemplated that a claim for unliquidated damages for a tort should be preseiited to the county court for allowance. In Chick v. Newberry and Union Counties, 27 S. C. 419, it was held, that a claim for damages caused by the sinking of a county ferry-boat was not such a claim as should first be presented to the county commissioners and then into court by means of appeal, as an action for damages for alleged negligence! on the part of the county commissioners should not be left for them to be judges in their own case. II oilingsworth v. Saunders County, 36 Neb. 141; Dement v. DeKalb...
To continue reading
Request your trial