Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

66 Ala. 137

Schroeder v. Colbert County

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided December 15, 1880

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1880-12-15

Tried before the Hon. W. B. Wood. This action was brought by Adam C. Shroeder against Colbert county, as a corporation, to recover damages for injuries sustained by his wife and son from the falling of a public bridge; and was commenced on the 19th February, 1878.

Relies on Barbour County v. Horn

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1880-12-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently September 1972

1 federal appellate · 15 state decisions

501880189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1Suits caunot, generally, be maintained against a county, until the claim or demand has been, within the period prescribed by the statute (Code of 1876, § 832), presented to the Commissioners Court of the county, and disallowed in whole or in part. — Code of 1876, § 2903. A claim against the county, for damages sustained from the falling of a public bridge, is of the class which must be presented to the Court of County Commissioners for allowance, before it can be made the subject of suit.Barbour County v. Horn, 41 Ala. 114. The Court of County Commissioners is prohibited from passing upon or allowing any claim against the county, unless it is itemized and stuorn to by the claimant, or some person in his behalf having personal knowledge of the facts.-r-Gode of 1876, § 827. The liability of the county to suit is statutory, and unless all the pre-requisites of the statute are observed, suits against it cannot be maintained. It would require the largest liberality and latitude of construction to deduce from the averments of the complaint the existence of a claim for which the county is chargeable. But, if that can -be done, there is a want of an averment that the claim was itemized and verified, as required, when presented to the Commissioners Court. If not so itemized and verified, they could not pass upon or allow it; and the disallowance of it may well be referred to its insufficiency in this respect.

¶2Affirmed.

/66/ala/137 · .json · Public domain