Richardson v. City of Salem

• Decision Date: 03 March 1908
• Citation: 94 P. 34,51 Or. 125
• Parties: RICHARDSON v. CITY OF SALEM. [a1]
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

94 P. 34

51 Or. 125

RICHARDSON v. CITY OF SALEM. ^[a1]

Supreme Court of Oregon

March 3, 1908

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County; G.H. Burnett, Judge.

Action by S.T. Richardson against the city of Salem. From a judgment on demurrer of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

C.M Inman and S.T. Richardson, for appellant.

Walter E. Keys, for respondent.

EAKIN, J.

Plaintiff brought this action in the justice's court against the defendant to recover $50 as the reasonable compensation for services rendered to the city at its special instance and request, in examining and checking over that part of the new books of the city treasurer of the defendant from January 1899, to January, 1904, and in preparing the report thereon. It alleges that he prepared his claim for said sum of $50 in writing, and duly presented it to defendant, and that the common council of the defendant examined, passed upon, and disallowed it upon the sole ground that said claim had been paid. The defendant demurred to the complaint, on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, which was sustained by the court, and judgment was rendered thereon in favor of the defendant. Plaintiff appealed to the circuit court, and that court sustained the demurrer, and gave judgment for the defendant. Plaintiff brings the cause here by appeal.

Two points are raised by defendant: (1) That the complaint does not allege that the claim was itemized and verified when presented to the city; (2) that it is not disclosed by the complaint that, at the time of the presentation of the claim there were funds in the treasury available for the payment thereof. Section 13 of the Salem charter of 1899 (Laws 1899 p. 932) provides "that no claim against the city shall be paid until it is first itemized and verified by the affidavit of claimant, his agent or attorney and audited and allowed by the council, and then only upon a warrant drawn upon the treasurer by the recorder, countersigned by the mayor."

It is admitted by counsel for plaintiff that it was necessary for him to present his claim to the city, which he did, but without verification. He insists that the itemizing or verification are not conditions precedent to the bringing of the action thereon, and are matters of defense and, therefore, may be waived, which he claims was done in this case. If setting out the items of the account and verifying the same were only for the advice and guidance of the auditing officer, possibly he might waive them, as was held in Griswold v. City, 116 Mich. 401, 74 N.W. 663, and in Kennedy v. Mayor, 34 A.D. 311, 54 N.Y.Supp. 261, but the language of the Salem charter is imperative: "No claim against the city shall be paid until it is first itemized and verified." These conditions are embodied in the charter for the protection of the taxpayers, as well as to provide notice and information to the auditing body; and the complaint must allege such facts as disclose that the city is in default. In Philomath v. Ingle, 41 Or. 289, 293, 68 P. 803, 804, Mr. Justice Moore says: "The rule is well settled that, 'where the presentation of a claim or the filing of a notice is required, such notice or presentation of claim is a condition precedent to the right to maintain an action against a municipal corporation, and must be averred by the plaintiff.' 14 Ency.Pl. & Pr. 235. It was necessary for Ingle to present his account to the recorder for audit, in order to entitle him to payment from the city, and it was...