King v. City of Spokane

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Washington
Writing for the CourtFULLERTON, J.
Citation52 Wash. 601,100 P. 997
Decision Date13 April 1909
PartiesKING v. CITY OF SPOKANE.

100 P. 997

52 Wash. 601

KING
v.
CITY OF SPOKANE.

Supreme Court of Washington

April 13, 1909


Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; E. H. Sullivan, Judge.

Action by Erasmus M. King against the City of Spokane. Judgment of nonsuit, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and new trial granted.

A. E. Barnes and Horace Kimball, for appellant.

L. R. Hamblen, F. D. Allen, and Harry A. Rhodes, for respondent.

FULLERTON, J.

The appellant brought this action against the respondent to recover damages for personal injuries, caused, as he alleges, by the negligence of the respondent. He was nonsuited in the court below because of a misstatement in his claim for damages filed with the city council, and appeals from the judgment entered against him.

The charter of the city of Spokane provides that all claims for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by reason of the negligence of the city must be presented to the city council within one month after such injuries have been received, that such claim shall be in writing, and shall state the time when and the place where such injuries[52 Wash. 602] were received, and the cause, nature, and extent of the same, and must be verified by the claimant to be true; 'and the refusal or omission to present such claim and give notice is required, in the manner and within the time in this section required, shall be taken to be and shall be, a waiver of any and all damages on account of such injuries, and shall be a bar to any suit or action against the city to recover the same or any part thereof.' The appellant was injured on a public street in the city of Spokane. During the month of December, 1904, the city was constructing a public library, and had piled, or permitted to be piled, certain building materials, consisting of sand and gravel, on the street in front of the lot on which the building was being constructed. On the night of the injury the material was left without being guarded by lights or barriers of any kind, and the appellant drove upon it with an open buggy, and was thrown out and injured. The accident occurred, according to his statement, on December 27, 1904. He filed a claim for damages with the city council of the city of Spokane on January 25, 1905. The claim, while seemingly regular in other respects, stated the time of the injury as December 27, 1905. After receiving the claim, the city council referred it to its finance committee, who, in turn, referred it to the corporation counsel. That officer on July 26, 1905, returned it to the finance committee with the recommendation that the claim be disallowed; his report being as follows: 'Spokane,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Dunn v. Boise City, 4738
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • December 27, 1927
    ...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 c......
  • Maggs v. City of Seattle, 12538.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • July 29, 1915
    ...a substantial compliance with such charter provisions [150 P. 614.] is all that is required. Lindquist v. Seattle, supra; King v. Spokane, 52 Wash. 601, 100 P. 997; Falldin v. Seattle, 50 Wash. 561, 97 P. 658; Hammock v. Tacoma, 40 Wash. 539, 82 P. 893; Ellis v. Seattle, 47 Wash. 578, 92 P.......
  • Melovitch v. City of Tacoma, 19316.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • August 18, 1925
    ...84 P. 721; Ellis v Seattle, 47 Wash. 578, 92 P. 431; Hase v. Seattle, 51 Wash. 174, 98 P. 370, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 938; King v. Spokane, 52 Wash. 601, 100 P. 997; Lindquist v. Seattle, 67 Wash. 230, 121 P. 449. [135 Wash. 539] We conclude that the claim filed in behalf of the child was not ......
  • Titus v. City of Montesano, 15186.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • May 1, 1919
    ...not uniform. Our own cases, in so far as we have touched upon the question, tend to support the conclusion we now reach. King v. Spokane, 52 Wash. 601, 100 P. 997, Murray v. Seattle, 96 Wash. 646, 165 P. 895. In Sullivan v. City of Syracuse, 77 Hun, 440, 29 N.Y.S. 105, the time of the injur......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Dunn v. Boise City, 4738
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • December 27, 1927
    ...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 c......
  • Maggs v. City of Seattle, 12538.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • July 29, 1915
    ...a substantial compliance with such charter provisions [150 P. 614.] is all that is required. Lindquist v. Seattle, supra; King v. Spokane, 52 Wash. 601, 100 P. 997; Falldin v. Seattle, 50 Wash. 561, 97 P. 658; Hammock v. Tacoma, 40 Wash. 539, 82 P. 893; Ellis v. Seattle, 47 Wash. 578, 92 P.......
  • Melovitch v. City of Tacoma, 19316.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • August 18, 1925
    ...84 P. 721; Ellis v Seattle, 47 Wash. 578, 92 P. 431; Hase v. Seattle, 51 Wash. 174, 98 P. 370, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 938; King v. Spokane, 52 Wash. 601, 100 P. 997; Lindquist v. Seattle, 67 Wash. 230, 121 P. 449. [135 Wash. 539] We conclude that the claim filed in behalf of the child was not ......
  • Titus v. City of Montesano, 15186.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • May 1, 1919
    ...not uniform. Our own cases, in so far as we have touched upon the question, tend to support the conclusion we now reach. King v. Spokane, 52 Wash. 601, 100 P. 997, Murray v. Seattle, 96 Wash. 646, 165 P. 895. In Sullivan v. City of Syracuse, 77 Hun, 440, 29 N.Y.S. 105, the time of the injur......
  • 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