Van Loan v. Village of Lake Mills

• Citation: 88 Wis. 430,60 N.W. 710
• Parties: VAN LOAN v. VILLAGE OF LAKE MILLS.
• Decision Date: 23 October 1894
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin

88 Wis. 430

60 N.W. 710

VAN LOAN

v.VILLAGE OF LAKE MILLS.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Oct. 23, 1894.

Appeal from circuit court, Jefferson county; John R. Bennett, Judge.

Action by Minnie Van Loan against the village of Lake Mills for injuries caused by a defective sidewalk. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.Bushnell, Rogers & Hall, for appellant.

W. H. Rogers, for respondent.

ORTON, C. J.

This is an action to recover damages for injury to the plaintiff, caused by the insufficiency and want of repair of a certain sidewalk in the respondent village. The statute (section 1339, Rev. St.) provides as follows: “No such action shall be maintained against any village, unless within ninety days after the happening of the event causing such damages, notice in writing signed by the party, his agent or attorney, shall be given to * * * one of the trustees of the village * * * against which damages are claimed, stating the place where such damages occurred, and describing generally the insufficiency or want of repair which occasioned it,” etc. The notice offered in evidence to answer the requirements of this section was as follows: “Lake Mills, July 8, 1891. To the Village Board of the Village of Lake Mills, Jefferson County, State of Wisconsin. Take notice, on the 16th day of May, 1891, at 6 o'clock p. m., while walking home on the sidewalk on Madison street, opposite the Moravian church, in company with Prof. Terry, owing to a defective sidewalk, which caused me to fall and strike on my right knee, and seriously injure it, so that I am unable to walk as yet without great lameness and pain, and have been confined at home since the 16th day of May. Feeling that I am entitled to damages, the village can settle with me on easy terms, if disposed to do so. If the village board will pay me one thousand dollars damages, I will relinquish all claims against said village for damages, without further trouble. [Signed] Minnie Van Loan.” The plaintiff not having offered any other notice required by said statute, the court granted a nonsuit of the case, on the ground of defective notice. The learned counsel of the appellant contends that this notice was substantially sufficient to maintain the action, and this is the only question in the case on this appeal.

This is a very plain statute, and easily followed. It will not do to say that a notice under this statute that does not state the place where the damages occurred, and describe...