Doyle v. City of Duluth

Decision Date03 November 1898
Citation76 N.W. 1029,74 Minn. 157
PartiesDOYLE v CITY OF DULUTH.
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Held, following Bausher v. City of St. Paul (Minn.) 75 N. W. 745, that chapter 248, Laws 1897, requiring notice to cities or villages of any injury for which damages are claimed, imposes a uniform condition precedent to liability, and that it applies to all of the municipalities of the state. Held, further, that it is not sufficient to give such notice to the mayor, but it must be given to the council or other governing body of the municipality, and must state the amount of compensation claimed for the injury.

Appeal from district court, St. Louis county; William A. Cant, Judge.

Action by Annie Doyle against the city of Duluth. Action dismissed. From an order denying her motion for a new trial, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

John Jenswold, Jr., for appellant.

J. B. Richards, for respondent.

START, C. J.

This is an action to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff as the result of a defective sidewalk of the defendant city. The cause was at issue, and came on for trial before a jury. Thereupon the defendant objected to the introduction of any testimony, and moved the dismissal of the action, for the reason that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, because it contained no sufficient allegation that notice of the plaintiff's injury was presented to the common council of the city, as required by law. The trial court dismissed the action, and the plaintiff appealed from an order denying her motion for a new trial.

1. It is necessary at the outset to settle whether the question of the sufficiency of the allegation of the complaint as to giving notice to the city of the plaintiff's claim is to be determined by the provisions of chapter 248, Laws 1897, or exclusively by those contained in the city charter. The latter are in these words: “Before the city of Duluth shall be liable for damages to any person injured upon any of the streets, avenues, alleys or sidewalks of the city, the person so injured or some one in his behalf, shall give the mayor or common council notice in writing of such injury, within thirty days after the same has been received stating in such notice when, where, and how the injury occurred, and the extent thereof.” Sp. Laws 1887, c. 2, subc. 12, § 3. The charter of Duluth also provides that “no law of the state contravening the provisions of this act, shall be considered as repealing, amending or modifying the same, unless such purpose be set forth in such law.” Id. § 7. This is a literal copy of the charter of the city of St. Paul. See Sp. Laws 1874, c. 1, subc. 12, § 20. Chapter 248, Laws 1897, declares: “Before any city, village or borough in this state shall be liable to any person for damages for, or on account of, any injury or loss alleged to have been received or suffered by reason of any defect in any bridge, street, road, sidewalk, park, public ground, ferry boat, or public works of any kind in said city, village or borough, or by reason of any alleged negligence of any officer, agent, servant or employé of said city, village or borough, the person so alleged to be injured, or some one in his behalf, shall give to the city or village council, or trustees or other governing body of such city, village or borough, within thirty days after the alleged injury, notice thereof; and shall present his or their claim to compensation to such council or governing body in writing, stating the time when, the place where and the circumstances under which such alleged loss or injury occurred and the amount of compensation or the nature of the relief demanded from the city, village or borough, and such body shall have ten days' time within which to decide upon the course it will pursue with relation to such claim; and no...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 cases
  • Brown v. Salt Lake City
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • January 9, 1908
    ...Mass. 441.) The requirement is reasonable and is mandatory, and a condition precedent to recovery. (Lincoln v. Grant, 55 N.W. 745; Dale v. Duluth, 76 N.W. 1029; Trost Casselton [Mich.], 79 N.W. 1071; Startling v. Bedford [Iowa], 62 N.W. 674; Hastings v. Foxworthy, 63 N.W. 955 (Neb.); Sowle ......
  • Peterson v. Kansas City
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 3, 1930
    ...N.E. 32; Curry v. Buffalo, 32 N.E. 80; MacMullen v. City of Middletown, 79 N.E. 863; Harris v. City of Fond du Lac, 104 Wis. 44; Doyle v. Duluth, 76 N.W. 1029; McAuliff v. Detroit, 113 N.W. 1112; Cole v. Seattle, 116 Pac. 257; Murray v. City of Butte, 151 Pac. 1051; Denver v. Saulcey, 83 Pa......
  • Peterson v. Kansas City
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 3, 1930
    ... ... 32; Curry ... v. Buffalo, 32 N.E. 80; MacMullen v. City of ... Middletown, 79 N.E. 863; Harris v. City of Fond du ... Lac, 104 Wis. 44; Doyle v. Duluth, 76 N.W ... 1029; McAuliff v. Detroit, 113 N.W. 1112; Cole ... v. Seattle, 116 P. 257; Murray v. City of ... Butte, 151 P. 1051; Denver ... ...
  • Szroka v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • April 8, 1927
    ...no cause of action. Nichols v. Minneapolis, 30 Minn. 545, 16 N. W. 410; Bausher v. St. Paul, 72 Minn. 539, 75 N. W. 745; Doyle v. Duluth, 74 Minn. 157, 76 N. W. 1029; Engstrom v. Minneapolis, 78 Minn. 200, 80 N. W. 962; Peterson v. Red Wing, 101 Minn. 62, 111 N. W. 840; Mitchell v. Chisholm......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT