Jones v. City of Amory

• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: ANDERSON, Justice.
• Citation: Jones v. City of Amory, 184 Miss. 161, 185 So. 237 (Miss. 1939)
• Decision Date: 02 January 1939
• Docket Number: 33471.
• Parties: JONES v. CITY OF AMORY.

185 So. 237

184 Miss. 161

JONES v. CITY OF AMORY.

No. 33471.

Supreme Court of Mississippi, Division B.

January 2, 1939

Appeal from Circuit Court, Monroe County; Thos. H. Johnston, Judge.

Action by G. B. Jones against the City of Amory to recover damages for a personal injury. From a judgment of dismissal plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Geo T. & Chas. S. Mitchell, of Tupelo, for appellant.

J. O Prude, Jr., of Amory, and D. W. Houston, Sr. & Jr., of Aberdeen, for appellee.

ANDERSON, Justice.

Appellant sued appellee for damages for a personal injury received by him, while engaged as a carpenter in repairing the City Hall of Amory, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the latter. A demurrer to the declaration was sustained, and appellant declining to plead further, final judgment was entered dismissing the cause.

Amory is a municipality under the laws of the state. The question involved is whether or not in making the repairs, the city was acting in its governmental capacity, or its private capacity. If the former, there was no liability; while if the latter, there was.

The portion of the declaration necessary to have before us in determining the question follows:

" That on or before May 6, 1937, certain repairs on the City Hall building, the property of said city, became necessary or advisable, and the said defendant, for the purpose of making said repairs, employed one W. A. Stockton as supervisor or foreman to supervise the work on said building and to employ the necessary labor to do said work. That in accordance with the authority given him or conferred upon him by said defendant, the said W. A. Stockton Supervisor or Foreman as aforesaid, employed plaintiff herein, G. B. Jones, to assist in the carpenter work on said building, and it then and there became and was the duty of the said defendant and its said supervisor or foreman to exercise reasonable care and diligence to furnish the said plaintiff a reasonably safe place in which to do his said work; yet the said defendant, not regarding its duty owing to plaintiff in this behalf, did, through its said supervisor or foreman, direct the said plaintiff to engage in such work thereon as required him to stand on a scaffold furnished by said city and theretofore erected by it. That in the progress of said work and while plaintiff was engaged in doing the work assigned to him by said supervisor or foreman, and while he was

...