verified claim in Michigan

1961This Court in Snyder v. King, 199 Mich 345 (1 ALR. 893), with reference to a contention plaintiff: shipper could not recover because he did not file a verified claim within 5 days as required under a uniform contract provision, stated (pp 355-357): “In our opinion the only serious question here involved is whether there was a substantial compliance with the 5-day requirement.

1953Both parties treated the investigation as though made within a reasonable time, and, as the delay was caused by the investigation, the city cannot set it up as a defense in this, action.” In Klass v. City of Detroit, 129 Mich 35 (95 Am St Rep 407), the plaintiff sued the city of Detroit for damages resulting from personal injury received December 31, 1895, on account of failure by the city to keep a street in repair.

1940The 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.

1940Laws 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. Village of Highland Park, 199 Mich. 549 ), when damages from defective condition of a *321 highway is the subject of' the claim.

1917It is strenuously urged by defendants’ counsel that the plaintiff cannot recover because he did not file a verified claim within 5 days; that the shipment was an interstate shipment and governed by the Federal law, and the decisions pertaining thereto; and that the validity, force, and effect of the provisions of the uniform livestock contract involved in the case are, under the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, Federal questions, not within the field of State law regulations, and the following cases are cited: Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U. S. 491 (33 Sup. Ct. 148,

1917It is strenuously urged by defendants’ counsel that the plaintiff cannot recover because he did not file a verified claim within 5 days; that the shipment was an interstate shipment and governed by the Federal law, and the decisions pertaining thereto; and that the validity, force, and effect of the provisions of the uniform livestock contract involved in the case are, under the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, Federal questions, not within the field of State law regulations, and the following cases are cited: Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U. S. 491 (33 Sup. Ct. 148,

1908A similar holding will be found in Griswold v. City of Ludington, 116 Mich. 401 , where it was held that where an unverified claim was received by the council without objection, and kept under advisement until after the time for filing a verified claim had expired, during which period it was carrying on negotiations with claimant, there was evidence tending to show a waiver, and it was a case for a jury.

1908See Clark v. Village of Davison, 118 Mich. 420 ; Lindley v. City of Detroit, 131 Mich. 8 .

1898If the arbitration had taken place without the village authorities insisting upon the verified claim being filed, the case would have undoubtedly fallen within the rule of Canfield v. City of Jackson, supra; but the plaintiff himself put a stop to these proceedings, and commenced his suit within 47 days after the injuries were received, without filing a sworn statement.

1895Lay v. City of Adrian, 75 Mich. 438.

1891Clemens, 86 Mich. 220 , that the presentation of a verified claim for taxes paid under protest was a condition precedent to bringing suit for their recovery.