DocketNumber: 28855.
Citation Numbers: 15 S.E.2d 814, 65 Ga. App. 533, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 349
Judges: Felton, Stephens, Sutton
Filed Date: 6/26/1941
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
1. The county government of Cobb County is, by the act of 1924 (Ga. L. 1924, p. 314), creating the office of "commissioner of roads and revenues for Cobb County," vested in the commissioner holding office under that act, who "shall examine, allow, and settle all just claims against the county." Service on the single commissioner of Cobb County of a claim against the county within 12 months after the cause of action accrues is a presentation of the claim as provided in the Code, § 23-1602, which declares: "All claims against counties must be presented within 12 months after they accrue or become payable, or the same are barred."
2. The petition set out a cause of action and was supported by the evidence.
3. It was error to grant a nonsuit.
1. It appears from the evidence that within 12 months from the alleged injury and damage to the land the plaintiffs served C. M. Head, the sole commissioner of roads and revenues of Cobb County, personally with a written notice of the claim. This notice was dated November 18, 1938, and was signed by each of the plaintiffs. The Code, § 23-1602, provides: "All claims against counties must be presented within 12 months after they accrue or become payable, or the same are barred." The defendant contends that under this section the claim must be presented to the governing authorities of a county, and at a time when such authorities are in actual session for the transaction of county affairs; that the plaintiffs did not present the claim to the governing authorities; and that the notice of the claim was not served on the commissioner of roads and revenues of the county while in actual session for the transaction of county business.
The object of presenting a claim to a county before the institution of suit is to afford the county an opportunity to investigate the claim and ascertain the evidence and to avoid the incurrence of unnecessary litigation. See 15 C. J. 646; Neal v.Bartow County,
The Code, § 23-1602, does not require that a claim against the county be presented at a time when the governing authority is actually in session, either at a regular or called meeting, for the transaction of county affairs. Notice was just as effectually received by the county when its single commissioner was personally served with the claim within the time required by law, as if the claim had been presented to the commissioner and to the other members of the advisory board when they were holding a meeting for the transaction of county affairs.
2. The evidence for the plaintiffs otherwise tended to support the allegations of the petition which, as has been held by this court, stated a cause of action. Davis v. Cobb County,
3. The judge erred in awarding a nonsuit.
Judgment reversed. Sutton and Felton, JJ., concur. *Page 536