Case Name: SAUNDERS v. CITY OF FITZGERALD
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1901-05-25
Citations: 113 Ga. 619
Docket Number: 
Parties: SAUNDERS v. CITY OF FITZGERALD.
Judges: All the Justices concurring.
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 113
Pages: 619–620

Head Matter:
SAUNDERS v. CITY OF FITZGERALD.
Inasmuch as the act of December 20, 1899 (Acts 1899, p. 74), requires that certain claims against municipal corporations shall be presented for adjustment to the municipal authorities before suit can be brought thereon, and allows such authorities thirty days within which to consider and act upon such a claim, suit can not be brought upon such a claim until after the municipal authorities have acted upon the claim or after the expiration of thirty days from the time the claim is presented, unless there is a legal excuse for failure to comply with the provisions of the act.
Submitted May 7,
Decided May 25, 1901.
Action for damages. Before Judge Smith. Oconee superior court. October 25, 1900.
This action was on account of personal injuries.. There was a demurrer on the ground that the petition did not state facts sufficient to give the court jurisdiction, there being no allegation that before the filing of the suit the claim was presented to the city-council for adjustment, as required by the act of December 20, 1899 (Acts 1899, p. 74).’ After the filing of the demurrer, and at the appearance term, the plaintiff presented and proposed to file an amendment to the petition, in which amendment it was alleged: (1) “ That prior to bringing suit against the defendant herein for the present cause of action, plaintiff presented, for adjustment, to the governing authorities of the City of Fitzgerald, the defendant herein, his claim in writing, the same being the subject-matter of this suit, statiug the time, place, and extent of the injury received, as near as practicable, together with the acts of negligence that caused said injury.” (2) "That said governing authorities, after receiving written notice of said claim, as aforesaid, failed and neglected for more than thirty days to consider and act upon the same, and has ever refused so to do.” The defendant objected to the amendment, and the court refused to allow it, and sustained the demurrer. The plaintiff excepted.
E. S. Williams and Eldridge Cutts, for plaintiff.
E. W. Byman, for defendant. .

Opinion:
Simmons, C. J.
The act of December 20, 1899, requires, as a condition precedent to any suit upon a claim for money damages against a municipal corporation on account of injuries to person or property, that the claim shall be presented for adjustment to the municipal authorities. The act further provides that the municipal authorities shall have thirty days from the time of such presentation within which to consider and act upon such claim, and suspends the running of the statute of limitations during the time the claim is pending before such authorities without action on their part. In the present case the original petition made no allegation whatever that the claim had been presented to the municipal authorities. It therefore set out no cause of action. The amendment offered alleged that the claim had been presented before suit was brought, and that the municipal authorities had failed and neglected for more than thirty days to act upon it; but there was no allegation that the claim was presented more than thirty days before the suit was brought. So far as appears from the allegations made, the claim may have been presented to the municipal authorities on one day and suit brought on the next. The act contemplates that suit shall not be brought until after the municipal authorities have acted upon the claim, or have failed to take action thereon within thirty days. The amendment was therefore itself faulty, and was insufficient to perfect the original petition. The trial judge did not err in refusing to allow the amendment or in sustaining the demurrer to the petition.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concurring.