Whalen v. Bates
| Decision Date | 07 November 1895 |
| Citation | 19 R.I. 274,33 A. 224 |
| Parties | WHALEN v. BATES, City Treasurer. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Action by Michael E. Whalen against Frank M. Bates, city treasurer, on claim for damages sustained by taking of land for public use. On petition by defendant for a new trial. Granted.
Peter J. Quinn, for plaintiff.
Thomas P. Barnefield, for defendant.
MATTESON, C. J. Pub. St. R. I. c. 34, § 12, requires every person who shall have any claim against a town to present to the town council, or, if it be a claim against a city, to the city council, of the city, a particular account of his claim, and provides that, in case just and due satisfaction is not made within 40 days after the presentment of the claim, he may commence his action for its recovery. The presentation of the claim to the city council, in case of a claim against a city, is thus made a condition precedent to the maintenance of an action against a city. In the case at bar, the plaintiff's claim was never presented to the city council of Pawtucket, but a statement of it addressed, not to the city council, but to the mayor and board of aldermen (who constitute only one branch of the city council), was presented to the board of aldermen. We do not think that the presentation of the statement of the plaintiff's claim, restricted, by the terms in which it was addressed, to the consideration of the mayor and the board of aldermen, or one branch of the city council, can be regarded as a compliance with the statute.
We think that the common pleas division erred in its instruction to the jury that the plaintiff was not required to make known any claim that he had to the commissioners, nor to make known to them his relation to the property taken for the improvement, till he had received a notice specifically directed to him, and personally served on him by some proper officer, and that, if he was not so notified and served with notice of the proceedings, he was entitled to recover. The proceedings for the widening of the street in question were taken under Pub. St. R. I. c. 64, §§ 32-46. The only section of the statute which provides for personal notice is section 35. This requires that the town council or board of aldermen, as the case may be, shall, within 14 days after the making of their report by the commissioners, cause personal notice to be served on all persons named in the report, residing in the state. As the plaintiff did not appear before the commissioners or make known to them his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pyke v. City of Jamestown
... ... Claim ... must be presented to the council in section. Coleman v ... City of Fargo, 8 N.D. 69, 76 N.W. 1051; Whalen v ... Bates, 33 A. 224; Hiner v. City of Fondulac, 36 ... N.W. 632; Selden v. Village of St. Johns, 72 N.W ... 991; Doyle v. City of ... ...
-
Cole v. City of Seattle
... ... 487, 41 S.W. 704; ... Denver v. Saulcey, 5 Colo. App. 420, 38 P. 1098; ... Dorsey v. Racine, 60 Wis. 292, 18 N.W. 928; ... Whalen v. Bates, 19 R.I. 274, 33 A. 224; Curry ... v. Buffalo, 135 N.Y. 366, 32 N.E. 80; Seamons v ... Fitts, 21 R.I. 236, 42 A. 863; Bancroft ... ...
-
White v. Mayor and City Council of Nashville
...App. 487, 41 S. W. 704; Denver v. Saulcey, 5 Colo. App. 420, 38 Pac. 1098; Dorsey v. Racine, 60 Wis. 292, 18 N. W. 928; Whalen v. Bates, 19 R. I. 274, 33 Atl. 224; Curry v. Buffalo, 135 N. Y. 366, 32 N. E. 80; Seamons v. Fitts, 21 R. I. 236, 42 Atl. 863; Bancroft v. Page 723 Diego, 120 Cal.......
-
Hirshfeld v. District of Columbia
...v. City of New York, 1938, 278 N.Y. 517, 15 N.E.2d 672; Nevins v. City of Lexington, 1937, 212 N.C. 616, 194 S.E. 293; Whalen v. Bates, 1895, 19 R.I. 274, 33 A. 224; Gilkey v. City of Memphis, 1929, 159 Tenn. 220, 17 S.W.2d 4; Moran v. Salt Lake City, 1918, 53 Utah 407, 173 P. 702; Cole v. ......