City of Arlington v. Smith
| Decision Date | 01 December 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 31506,31506 |
| Citation | 238 Ga. 50,230 S.E.2d 863 |
| Parties | CITY OF ARLINGTON, Georgia v. Leonath P. SMITH. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Bowles & Bowles, Jesse G. Bowles, Cuthbert, for appellant.
Hatcher & Cook, Charles F. Hatcher, Albany, for appellee.
Mrs. Smith sued the City of Arlington for damages and injunction because the city tapped a neighbor's sewer line into her sewer line, causing sewage to 'back-up' into her house. The damage issue was dropped and a jury found in favor of Mrs. Smith, directing the city to remove the tap. The city appeals claiming the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict; that ante litem notice as required by Code Ann. § 69-308 was not filed prior to commencing suit; and the charge of the court was improper. We affirm.
1. The evidence shows that all city residents at the time appellee's late husband installed his sewer line could tap into the city's main sewer line at their own expense so long as maintenance and repair remained the sole responsibility of these property owners. No written easements were granted by the city, approval being granted by contacting the chief of police for verbal consent and instructions regarding the location of the main sewer tap. In our opinion this evidence authorized the jury to conclude that the sole use of such sewer line would remain in the property owner following installation. 'A sewer laid in a public road in compliance with an agreement . . . becomes a part of the realty in the absence of express or implied terms . . . to indicate otherwise . . .' Adams v. City of Macon, 204 Ga. 524(1), 50 S.E.2d 598 (1948). Accordingly, the City was properly enjoined from connecting the sewer line of an adjoining property owner to appellee's sewer line.
2. There is no merit to the contention that appellee failed to give ante litem notice to the City as required by Code Ann. § 69-308. The evidence shows appellee brought this matter to the city council's attention several times personally and by subsequent letters setting forth the substantial facts of her cause of action. The council considered the matter closed, gave no relief, and appellant subsequently filed suit. 'A substantial compliance with Code Ann. § 69-308 . . . is all that is required.' City of Atlanta v. Frank, 120 Ga.App. 273(1), 170 S.E.2d 265 (1969); Aldred v. City of Summerville, 215 Ga. 651, 653, 113 S.E.2d 108 (1960).
3. Reading the entire charge of the trial court to the jury, it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Atlanta Taxicab Co. Owners Ass'n v. Atlanta
...notice is substantively sufficient, since substantial compliance with the statute is all that is required. City of Arlington v. Smith, 238 Ga. 50(2), 230 S.E.2d 863 (1976). The information supplied will be deemed sufficient if it puts a municipality on notice of the "general character of th......
-
City of Columbus v. Myszka
...3. Substantial compliance with Code Ann. § 69-308 is all that is required in the giving of an ante-litem notice. City of Arlington v. Smith, 238 Ga. 50(2), 230 S.E.2d 863 (1976). The third enumeration of error is without merit. 4. The city contends that it cannot be held liable for punitive......
-
Owens v. City of Greenville, S11A1645.
...notice is substantively sufficient, since substantial compliance with the statute is all that is required . City of Arlington v. Smith, 238 Ga. 50(2), 230 S.E.2d 863 (1976). The information supplied will be deemed sufficient if it puts a municipality on notice of the “general character of t......
-
City of Rincon v. Sean and Ashleigh, Inc.
...... becomes a part of the realty in the absence of express or implied terms ... to indicate otherwise,'" City of Arlington v. Smith, 238 Ga. 50, 230 S.E.2d 863 (1976), the evidence in this case authorized the court to find that the parties had an agreement that Ashleigh would retain ownersh......