Engstrom v. City of Minneapolis

Minnesota Supreme Court
Engstrom v. City of Minneapolis, 78 Minn. 200 (Minn. 1899)
80 N.W. 962; 1899 Minn. LEXIS 807
Collins

Can I rely on this case?

Yes — no negative treatment found

Based on 2 citing opinions

Analysis generated from citing opinions in this archive. Not legal advice.

Engstrom v. City of Minneapolis

Opinion of the Court

COLLINS, J.

Tbe only’question raised by this appeal was disposed of in Bausher v. City of St. Paul, 72 Minn. 539, 75 N. W. 745,'in which it was held that Laws 1897, c. 248, requiring notice to cities and villages of an injury for which damages were claimed, is mandatory, and that such notice is a condition precedent to the right to maintain an action to recover such damages, áee also Doyle v. City of Duluth, 74 Minn. 157, 76 N. W. 1029. We have no occasion to add to what was said in these cases in support of the conclusion reached. They were properly determined, in our opinion.

Because of some statements of appellant’s counsel in his brief, it is well enough to say that we have not held that special charter provisions providing for notice of injuries have been repealed by chapter 248. The question has never been before us, and is not in this case.

Order affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name
AMANDA ENGSTROM v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS
Cited By
2 cases
Status
Published