1 Ala. App. 479 | Ala. Ct. App. | 1911
This is an action by the appellee for damages resulting from the maintenance of a nuisance. The action was originally against the town of East Lake, a municipal corporation, but, during the progress of the case, the act known as the “Greater Bir
It has been held by the courts of other states that, where one municipality is merged into another by an act providing that the latter shall be liable for the debts of'the former, the latter is liable, in an action for damages which accrued against the former before the merger.—City of Dallas v. Beenman, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 315, 55 S. W. 762; Huffmire v. Brooklyn, 162 N. Y. 584, 57 N. E. 176, 48 L. R. A. 421. Also that, Avhere such change was made during the pendency of the suit, it Avas proper to strike the name of the original defendant, and substitute that of the city Avhich had become liable by virtue of said act. — C. C. Barber v. City of East Dallas, 83 Tex. 147, 18 S. W. 438; Tyler v. Tillage of Lansinburgh, 76 App. Div. 165, 78 N. Y. Supp. 433.
It is true that, under our decisions, there-is'a limit to the right of amendment of a complaint, to the effect that a sole plaintiff or defendant cannot be stricken and another substituted in liis place.—Vinegar Bend Lumber Co. v. Chicago T. & T. Co., 131 Ala. 411, 30 South. 776; Sprinfielel Fire Ins. Co. v. De Jarnette, 111 Ala. 248, 257, 19 South. 995; Western Ry. of Alabama v. McCall, 89 Ala. 375, 7 South. 650; Demis Ave. R. Co. v. Patrick Mollon, 57 Ala. 168; Ex parte Collins, 49 Ala. 69.
As to the demurrer to the complaint, on the ground that it does not allege that the claim was presented within six months, this is a matter that should be presented by plea, and the record shows that it was presented by plea, and some of the charges asked by the defendant show that there was a presentation, which was held by the court to be legal, and there is no bill of exceptions. This is analogous to the defense of the failure to present a claim to an administrator, which, in a court of law, must be specially pleaded.—Adm'r of Mardis v. Smith, 2 Ala. 382; Smith & Crawford, Ex’rs, v. Huie, Adm'r, 14 Ala. 201, 206. There was no error in overruling this demurrer.
Affirmed.
Note. — The above opinion was prepared by Mr. Justice Simpson of the Supreme Court, before the transfer of the case to this court, and is adopted by this court.