City of Birmingham v. Jeff, 6 Div. 339.
Decision Date | 16 June 1938 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 339. |
Citation | 184 So. 281,236 Ala. 540 |
Parties | CITY OF BIRMINGHAM v. JEFF. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Oct. 6, 1938.
Certiorari to Court of Appeals.
Petition of the City of Birmingham for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that Court in the case of City of Birmingham v. Mrs. Herbert Jeff, (6 Div. 205) 184 So. 278.
Writ awarded.
Clarence Mullins, W. J. Wynn, and Harvey T. Deramus, all of Birmingham, for petitioner.
C. W. Greer and Geo. Frey, both of Birmingham, opposed.
The sole question presented for our review is the soundness of the opinion of the Court of Appeals in the holding that the variance between the statutory notice or demand as to the location of the defect causing the plaintiff's injury and the proof of a different place was not fatal to a recovery and did not constitute a reversal of the judgment of the trial court.
This case is identical in principle and quite similar in facts to the case of Brannon v. City of Birmingham, 177 Ala. 419, 59 So. 63, as they both relate to injuries sustained because of defects in a street or sidewalk, one being a hole and the other being an obstruction. It was brought out in the Brannon Case, supra, the importance and materiality of accuracy required in the notice as to the location of the defect producing the injury and the opinion of the Court of Appeals is in conflict with said case.
The case of Maise v. City of Gadsden, 232 Ala. 82, 166 So. 795, cited and relied upon by the Court of Appeals, is not in conflict with the Brannon Case, supra.
That case was for an assault committed upon the plaintiff by an agent or servant of the defendant and a variance in the designation of the street was considered immaterial, the opinion referring approvingly to the Brannon Case and distinguishing it from the case in hand. The opinion, in effect, conceding that when the injury was by a defect in the street, the location of the defect should be accurately and particularly described and so proven, but such proof was not material when the injury arose or was caused by an assault and not from a defect in the street.
The writ is awarded, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded to said court.
All the Justices concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Birmingham v. Young
... 22 So.2d 169 246 Ala. 650 CITY OF BIRMINGHAM v. YOUNG. 6 Div. 250. Supreme Court of Alabama May 10, 1945 ... [22 So.2d 170] ... 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 ... ...
-
City of Birmingham v. Lynch
...197 So. 48 240 Ala. 24 CITY OF BIRMINGHAM v. LYNCH. 6 Div. 664.Supreme Court of AlabamaMay 16, 1940 ... Rehearing ... Birmingham Southern R. Co. v. Goodwyn, 202 Ala. 599, ... 81 So. 339 ... The ... most that petitioner could expect on this review ... against a municipality. City of Birmingham v. Jeff, ... 236 Ala. 540, 184 So. 281; Brannon v. City of ... Birmingham, 177 ... ...
-
City of Waco v. Landingham
...1530; Olcott v. City of St. Paul, 91 Minn. 207, 97 N.W. 879; Krooner v. City of Waterbury, 105 Conn. 476, 136 A. 93; City of Birmingham v. Jeff, 236 Ala. 540, 184 So. 281; Id., 28 Ala.App. 343, 184 So. 278; Harrington v. City of Battle Creek, 288 Mich. 152, 284 N.W. 680; Brannon v. City of ......
-
McCarroll v. City of Bessemer
...the allegations of the particulars of a statement of claim and the actual proof of those particulars is fatal. City of Birmingham v. Jeff, 236 Ala. 540, 184 So. 281; Brannon v. City of Birmingham, 177 Ala. 419, 59 So. However, only on a few occasions has this court written to the sufficienc......