Senecal v. City of West St. Paul

• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: O'BRIEN, J.
• Citation: Senecal v. City of West St. Paul, 111 Minn. 253, 126 N.W. 826 (Minn. 1910)
• Decision Date: 17 June 1910
• Docket Number: 16,577 - (179)
• Parties: REMI SENECAL v. CITY OF WEST ST. PAUL

126 N.W. 826

111 Minn. 253

REMI SENECAL v. CITY OF WEST ST. PAUL

Nos. 16,577 - (179)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

June 17, 1910

Action in the district court for Dakota county by the administrator of the estate of George W. Senecal, deceased, to recover $5,000 for the death of his intestate alleged to have been caused by an injury received while passing over a defective crossing in defendant city. Plaintiff demurred to that part of the answer which set up as a defense to the action that it was begun more than one year after the cause of action accrued and plaintiff at no time filed with the city council any claim for damages. From an order, Crosby, J., overruling the demurrer, plaintiff appealed. Reversed.

SYLLABUS

Limitation of action for wrongful death.

Following Maylone v. City of St. Paul, 40 Minn. 406, it is held neither the defendant's charter nor section 768, R.L 1905, limiting the time within which certain actions may be commenced against municipalities, refer to or include actions for death by wrongful act.

Converse & Grannis, for appellant.

Emil W Helmes and Albert Schaller, for respondent.

OPINION

O'BRIEN, J.

The complaint alleged that George W. Senecal died as the result of injuries received by reason of a defective sidewalk in the city of West St. Paul. The accident occurred June 5, 1908. Plaintiff was appointed administrator on September 24, 1909, and brought this action September 25, 1909, to recover damages because of decedent's death. The defendant city answered, denying negligence on its part, and as a further defense alleged that no notice of the accident or claim had been given, and that the suit was commenced more than one year after the cause of action had accrued. A demurrer to this second defense was overruled, and plaintiff appeals from the order so made.

The city of West St. Paul is under a so-called "home rule charter," which contains the following provision: "* * * No action shall be had or maintained against the city of West St. Paul for any damages for alleged injuries to persons or property, unless an action be commenced within one (1) year after a cause of action has accrued, and unless the person alleged to be injured or some one in his behalf shall give to the common council of said city, within thirty days after the alleged injury, notice thereof."

In Maylone v. City of St. Paul, 40 Minn. 406, 42 N.W. 88 this court construed a charter provision which read as follows: "No action shall be maintained against the city of St. Paul on account of any injuries received by means of any defect in the condition of any bridge, street, sidewalk, or thoroughfare, unless such action shall be commenced within one year from the happening of the injury, or unless notice shall have first been given in writing to the mayor of said city, or the city clerk thereof, within thirty days of the occurrence of such injury or damage, stating the place where and the time when such injury was received, and that the person injured will claim damages of...