City of Claxton v. Claxton Poultry Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 29 April 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 50375,50375,1 |
| Citation | 215 S.E.2d 718,134 Ga.App. 679 |
| Parties | CITY OF CLAXTON v. CLAXTON POULTRY COMPANY, INC., et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Findley, Ratcliffe & Callaway, James E. Findley, Claxton, for appellant.
Lee & Clark, Fred S. Clark, Corish, Smith, Remler & Moore, Malberry Smith, Jr., Savannah, for appellees.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
In this suit against the City of Claxton by the Claxton Poultry Company and six insurance carriers as subrogees of the company, defendant's motion for summary judgment against all plaintiffs was denied. The denial was certified for immediate review. Held:
1. The motion as to the plaintiff Poultry Company was made on the ground that it failed to comply with the ante litem notice required by Code Ann. § 69-308.
The ante litem notice provisions of Code Ann. § 69-308 provides that the claim shall state 'the time, place, and extent of such injury, . . ., and the negligence which caused the same, and no such suit shall be entertained by the courts against such municipality until the cause of action therein shall have been first presented to said governing authority for adjustment . . .' Substantial compliance with this statutory prerequisite to suit is all that is required. Aldred v. City of Summerville, 215 Ga. 651, 113 S.E.2d 108. Here the notice of the claim furnishes all the required particulars and is more than sufficient as it in detail described numerous acts of alleged negligence in the operation of the cityowned natural gas system which caused a natural gas explosion. There is no requirement contemplated by the statute or by case law that after receipt of a notice of claim the municipality may require additional information or that the city may demand that the complainant appear before its council for an informational hearing. After plaintiffs furnished a sufficient ante litem notice, the municipality was required to consider and act on the claim by settlement or denial. Further discovery procedures are available to the city on the same basis offered by law to parties in all litigation proceedings.
2. As to the insurance carriers, the defendant urged that they are not proper parties. CPA § 20(a) provides: 'All persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative in respect of or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Claxton Poultry Co., Inc. v. City of Claxton
...the jurisdiction of the court. This is the second appearance of this case in this court, the first being City of Claxton v. Claxton Poultry Co., 134 Ga.App. 679, 215 S.E.2d 718 (1975), in which this court affirmed the trial court's denial of summary judgment. For a companion case, reference......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Five Transp. Co.
...464 (1975), revd. on other grounds, Lindsey v. Samoluk, 236 Ga. 171, 223 S.E.2d 147 (1976). See also City of Claxton v. Claxton Poultry Co., 134 Ga.App. 679(2), 215 S.E.2d 718 (1975). Second, it could be argued that State Farm is entitled to permissive intervention. Permissive intervention ......
-
Warren v. Kirwan
...Co., 216 S.C. 20, 56 S.E.2d 585 (1949); Holibaugh v. Cox, 167 Ohio St. 340, 148 N.E.2d 677 (1958); City of Claxton v. Claxton Poultry Company, Inc., 134 Ga.App. 679, 215 S.E.2d 718 (1975); Friedman v. Martini Tile & Terrazzo Company, 298 S.W.2d 221 (Tex.Civ.App.1957); Finance Corporation v.......
-
Murray v. Richardson
... ... Bryant v. Housing Authority of the City ... ...