Legal Opinion · Dissent

Knapp v. City of Detroit

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided November 13, 1940No. Docket No. 41, Calendar No. 41,154Published

1DissentButzel, J.

I concur in the foregoing opinion reversing the judgment as to the city of Hamtramck. The trial court incorrectly relied on Merrifield v. Village of Paw Paw, 274 Mich. 550, which was decided upon a provision of the village law requiring submission of a verified claim before allowance. In the case before us, a city rather than a village is involved. But we need not at this time determine whether the enactment of 1 Comp. Laws 1929, § 4230 (Stat. Ann. § 9.598), has obviated the requirement of making a verified claim against a village, in addition to giving the required notice (see Barkley v.…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Creamer v. West End Street Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
  2. Perret Et Ux. v. GeorgeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
  3. Spangler v. Saginaw Valley Traction Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1908
  4. Lenoue v. Worcester Consolidated Street Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1926
  5. Oppenheim v. PitcairnMichigan Supreme Court · 1940

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API