Haynes v. City of Seattle

Citations

• 87 Wash. 375
• 151 P. 789
• 1915 Wash. LEXIS 907

Syllabus

<p>Municipal Corporations—Claims—Actions—-Pendency of Action —Rehearing on Appeal. An action, appealed to tbe supreme court, is “pending” until the disposition of a petition for a rehearing, within tbe meaning of Laws 1915, p. 421, providing that no action against a city for damages “now pending” shall be defeated by tbe failure of tbe plaintiff to file a claim where a claim has been heretofore filed in tbe manner required by tbe act.</p> <p>Same—Claims—Notice—-Statutes—Curative Acts—Effect. Under Laws 1915, p. 421, providing that no action against a city for damages “shall be defeated by tbe failure of tbe plaintiff to file a claim, where a claim has been heretofore filed” in tbe manner required in tbe act, and authorizing claims to be filed by any relative or agent if tbe claimant is incapacitated, tbe plaintiff’s right to a trial on tbe merits in an action pending on appeal from judgment of dismissal for want of notice, is perfected by tbe enactment of tbe laws of 1915, and tbe filing with tbe city of a claim verified by her father while she was incapacitated in tbe manner provided by tbe act.</p> <p>Appeal—Presumptions—Pleadings—Amendment — Involuntary Abandonment of Claim. Where a complaint was amended by omitting an essential part, after a motion to strike and tbe entry of an order, “motion to strike . . . granted in part, denied in part,” it will be presumed on appeal that there was no voluntary abandonment of the original complaint, hut that the amendment was in compliance with the order to strike, in view of the indefiniteness of the order and the probable oral remarks of the court in disposing of the motion.</p>