SKINNER v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES (1935)

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.

SKINNER v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES.*

Civ. 10014.

Decided: April 19, 1935

Ray L. Chesebro, Frederick Von Schrader, Charles F. Reiche, and Arthur W. Nordstrom, all of Los Angeles, for appellant. E. H. Delorey, of Los Angeles, for respondent.

Plaintiff sued to recover damages resulting from a change of grade of a street adjacent to certain property owned by him. Prior to suit, a claim had been filed by plaintiff with the city council of defendant city. At the trial the court found that no such claim had been filed with the board of public works of defendant city, but held that presentation of such claim to the council was sufficient. From judgment for plaintiff, this appeal is taken on the sole ground that such claim should have been filed with the board of public works and that by failing to file it with that body instead of with the city council plaintiff is precluded from recovery.

We are satisfied with the correctness of the view heretofore expressed in the case of Haigh v. City of Los Angeles, 139 Cal. App. 595, 34 P.(2d) 779, and also in the case of Musto-Keenan v. City of Los Angeles, 139 Cal. App. 506, 34 P.(2d) 506, and on their authority affirm the judgment in the instant case. See, also, Robertson v. City of Los Angeles (Cal. App.) 44 P.(2d) 461, this day decided.

Judgment affirmed.

SCOTT, Justice pro tem.

We concur: STEPHENS, P. J.; CRAIL, J.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network