Dunn v. Boise City, 4738

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Idaho
Writing for the CourtWM. E. LEE, C. J.
Citation45 Idaho 362,262 P. 507
PartiesROBERT DUNN, Appellant, v. BOISE CITY, a Municipal Corporation, Respondent
Docket Number4738
Decision Date27 December 1927

262 P. 507

45 Idaho 362

ROBERT DUNN, Appellant,
v.

BOISE CITY, a Municipal Corporation, Respondent

No. 4738

Supreme Court of Idaho

December 27, 1927


MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS-CLAIMS FOR DAMAGE-NOTICE-SUFFICIENCY-PURPOSE OF STATUTE REQUIRING.

1. Important purpose of C. S., sec. 3847, providing that all claims for damages against city of first class must be filed within thirty days, and specify time, place, character and cause of damage, as condition precedent to action against city, is to give city notice of claim and opportunity to ascertain extent of injury, cause and whether there is liability.

2. Claim for damages filed against city of first class, under C. S., sec. 3847, will sustain action against city, and is admissible in evidence, if it so specifies time, place, character and cause of damages that officials of city can investigate injury giving rise to damages.

3. Claims filed against city of first class for damages caused by breaking of artificial waterway of city, stating that injury accrued "January 29th and following," that property was flooded on January 29th, and for some time thereafter, that damages accrued during flood, and stating name and address of claimant, and that claim was for damage to lot and building from flood waters, held sufficient under C. S., sec. 3847, since sufficiently stating time of flood and damage, place of injury, character and [45 Idaho 363] cause of damage, and not insufficient because failing to allege negligence.

4. C. S., sec. 3847, providing that claim for damages filed against city of first class as condition precedent to action against city must specify time, place, character and cause of damage, requires only substantial compliance.

5. C. S., sec. 3847, providing that claims for damages against city of first class must be filed within certain time, and specify certain things as condition precedent to action against city, must be construed with its object in mind, and so as not to defeat ends of justice.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, for Ada County. Hon. Clinton H. Hartson, Judge.

Action for damages. Judgment for defendant. Reversed and remanded.

Judgment reversed. Costs to appellant.

C. H. Edwards and Harry S. Kessler, for Appellant.

"All claims for damages against the city must be filed with the city clerk within 30 days after the time when such claim for damages shall have accrued, specifying the time, place, character and cause of said damage. No action shall be maintained against the city for any claim for damages until the same has been presented to the city council, and until 60 days have elapsed after such presentation. The allowance of any and all damage claims against the city shall be by ordinance, and not otherwise." (C. S., sec. 3847; 28 Cyc. 1447 (c); 12 Second Dec. Dig., Munic. Corp., sec. 812; Cook v. City of Topeka, 75 Kan. 534, 90 P. 244.)

The object or purpose of these statutes is to enable the town authorities to examine the place shortly after the alleged injury while the physical facts are unchanged, to enable them to consider the merits of the claim and either to adjust the damages or prepare a defense. (Hinds v. Hinsdale, 80 N.H. 346, 116 A. 635; City of Bessemer v. Barnett, 212 Ala. 202, 102 So. 23; Falldin v. City of Seattle, 50 Wash. 561, 97 P. 658; King v. City of Spokane, 52 Wash. 601, 100 P. 997.)

The statutes are quite generally construed as mandatory and to be strictly construed as to the fact of notice, to the proper city officials within the time set and the filing of such notice is a condition precedent to the beginning of an action. (16 Second Dec. Dig., Munic. Corp., 812 (2); 28 Cyc. 1450 and 1452; 19 R. C. L. 1040, sec. 329; Ogle v. Kansas City (Mo. App.), 242 S.W. 115; Burroughs v. City of Lawrence, 116 Kan. 573, 227 P. 328; Reid v. Kansas City, 195 Mo.App. 457, 192 S.W. 1047; City of East Chicago v. Gilbert, 59 Ind.App. 613, 108 N.E. 29.)

On the other hand, where notice has been given to the proper officers, within the time fixed and in an effort to comply with the statutory requirement, the courts quite as uniformly hold that the statutes should be liberally construed as to the contents of the notice. (28 Cyc. 1453 (h); 19 R. C. L. 1044, sec. 333; White, Negligence, Munic. Corp., sec. 674; City of Birmingham v. Mauzey, 214 Ala. 476, 108 So. 382; Ogle v. Kansas City, supra; Burroughs v. City of Lawrence, supra; Reid v. Kansas City, supra; Bowles v. City of Richmond, 147 Va. 720, 129 S.E. 489, (on rehearing) 133 S.E. 593; City of East Chicago v. Gilbert, supra; City of Denver v. Bradbury, 19 Colo. App. 441, 75 P. 1077; Ray v. City of Council Bluffs, 193 Iowa 620, 187 N.W. 447; Titus v. City of Montesano, 106 Wash. 608, 181 P. 43; King v. City of Spokane, supra.)

This rule of liberal construction is so generally adopted that it may fairly be said to be universal. (Bowles v. City of Richmond (on rehearing), supra.)

Clarence T. Ward, for Respondent.

The city is without jurisdiction, to consider and pay the claim until the conditions making it liable for tort have been complied with, and the plaintiff must plead and prove a compliance with such conditions before he states a cause of action or is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 practice notes
  • Newlan v. State, Nos. 11561
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • April 30, 1975
    ...with a notice of claim requirement is mandatory and without such compliance a suit may not be maintained. See Dunn v. Boise City, 45 Idaho 362, 262 P. 507 (1927); McLean v. City of Spirit Lake, 91 Idaho 779, 430 P.2d 670 (1967); Carter v. Allan, 94 Idaho 190, 484 P.2d 739 Appellants argue t......
  • McLean v. City of Spirit Lake, No. 9893
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • July 27, 1967
    ...(Rev.Ed.1963) § 53.154 and cases cited at note 21 p. 559; 38 Am.Jur. Municipal Corporations, §§ 673, 674. Cf. Dunn v. Boise City, 45 Idaho 362, 262 P. 507 Research fails to disclose that I.C. § 50-2010 has ever been previously considered by this Court. However, in Dunn v. Boise City, supra,......
  • Husband v. Salt Lake City, 5800
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • June 16, 1937
    ...of the claim, the followings cases are also in point: More v. City of San Bernardino, 118 Cal.App. 732, 5 P.2d 661; Dunn v. Boise City, 45 Idaho 362, 262 P. 507; Peacock v. City of Greensboro, 196 N.C. 412, 146 S.E. 3. [92 Utah 467] Defendant cites and quotes from Harrison Co. v. Atlanta, 2......
  • Bingham County Com'n v. Interstate Elec. Co., a Div. of the L.E. Myers Co., No. 14177
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • June 22, 1983
    ...complied with the statute and its purposes. See Weaver v. Village of Bancroft, 92 Idaho 189, 439 P.2d 697 (1968); Dunn v. Boise City, 45 Idaho 362, 262 P. 507 (1927). We would also note that Bingham County considered this claim as though it were properly presented, but denied it because the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
13 cases
  • Newlan v. State, Nos. 11561
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • April 30, 1975
    ...with a notice of claim requirement is mandatory and without such compliance a suit may not be maintained. See Dunn v. Boise City, 45 Idaho 362, 262 P. 507 (1927); McLean v. City of Spirit Lake, 91 Idaho 779, 430 P.2d 670 (1967); Carter v. Allan, 94 Idaho 190, 484 P.2d 739 Appellants argue t......
  • McLean v. City of Spirit Lake, No. 9893
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • July 27, 1967
    ...(Rev.Ed.1963) § 53.154 and cases cited at note 21 p. 559; 38 Am.Jur. Municipal Corporations, §§ 673, 674. Cf. Dunn v. Boise City, 45 Idaho 362, 262 P. 507 Research fails to disclose that I.C. § 50-2010 has ever been previously considered by this Court. However, in Dunn v. Boise City, supra,......
  • Husband v. Salt Lake City, 5800
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • June 16, 1937
    ...of the claim, the followings cases are also in point: More v. City of San Bernardino, 118 Cal.App. 732, 5 P.2d 661; Dunn v. Boise City, 45 Idaho 362, 262 P. 507; Peacock v. City of Greensboro, 196 N.C. 412, 146 S.E. 3. [92 Utah 467] Defendant cites and quotes from Harrison Co. v. Atlanta, 2......
  • Bingham County Com'n v. Interstate Elec. Co., a Div. of the L.E. Myers Co., No. 14177
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • June 22, 1983
    ...complied with the statute and its purposes. See Weaver v. Village of Bancroft, 92 Idaho 189, 439 P.2d 697 (1968); Dunn v. Boise City, 45 Idaho 362, 262 P. 507 (1927). We would also note that Bingham County considered this claim as though it were properly presented, but denied it because the......
  • 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