will be clearer and more positive. The time of a presentment of a claim may be also limited. These provisions usually require the presentment of claims to certain designated officials within a certain prescribed time from and after the date of an accident or injury,129 or the rendition of a service claimed,1202 and further prescribe that unless this is done and in the manner designated the claim cannot be urged as a valid one against the corporation,1293 or, if presented, must be disallowed without an opportu termine that the entire sidewalk was or was not at the particular time in every spot free of ice, or accumulation of ice and snow which should have been sooner removed. This, it seems to me, is unreasonable, and practically defeats entirely the purpose of the required notice. There is nothing in the notice filed with the clerk of the village in this case from which the time and place could with any reasonable certainty have been discovered or fixed and for this reason I do not think the claimant has shown a substantial compliance with the requirements of the statute." 1291 Dement v. DeKalb County, 97 Ga. 733. The bringing of an action against a county within the time limited is a sufficient presentation of the claim sued on. Herdman V. Woodson County Com'rs, 6 Kan. App. 513, 50 Pac. 946; City of Covington v. Voskotter, 80 Ky. 219; Chase v. Inhabitants of Surry, 88 Me. 468. The notice must be received by the public corporation within the time prescribed by statute; its mailing with in that time is not sufficient. Broffee v. City of Grand Rapids, 127 Mich. 89, 86 N. W. 401. Such a charter provision is not retroactive. Powers v. City of St. Paul, 36 Minn. 87; Bullock v. Town of Abb. Corp. Vol. II-18. Durham, 64 Hun, 380, 19 N. Y. Supp. 635. Such statutes cannot be made retroactive. Yaw v. State, 127 N. Y. 190, 27 N. E. 829; Folts v. State, 118 N. Y. 406; Oshkosh Waterworks Co. v. City of Oshkosh, 106 Wis. 83, 81 N. W. 1040. A claim is "presented" when filed with the city clerk. Hildman v. City of Phillips, 106 Wis. 611. 1292 Lincoln County v. Luning, 133 U. S. 529. Such a statutory provision applies only to unallowed demands or claims; not bonds or coupons. State V. Cass County Com'rs, 60 Neb. 566, 83 N. W. 733. A claim is filed when delivered to the county clerk although he fail to indorse upon it the time of filing San Miguel County Com'rs v. Pierce,. 6 N. M. 324, 28 Pac. 512; Merchants" & Traders' Nat. Bank v. City of New York, 97 N. Y. 355; Parmenter v. State, 135 N. Y. 154; Royster v.. Granville County Com'rs, 98 N. C. 148, 3 S. E. 739. 1293 Winters v. Ramsey, 4 Idaho, 303, 39 Pac. 193; Sowter v. Town of Grafton, 65 N. H. 207, 19 Atl. 572; Benedict v. State, 120 N. Y. 228; Pitt County School Directors v. Town of Greenville, 130 N. C. 87, 40 S. E. 847. Such requirements. are jurisdictional; they cannot be waived. State v. Colleton County nity for appeal or re-review.1294 The general statutes of limitation may also apply to the presentment of claims.1295 To prevent injustice, however, it is often provided that a failure to present a claim within the time required by law will not operate as a bar to its further prosecution if certain reasons can be established or shown for such failure; such are commonly those based either upon the ignorance of the parties,1298 their absence from the community, or some physical or mental disqualification or other unavoidable cause.' 1297 Com'rs, 31 S. C. 81, 9 S. E. 692; Goldsworthy v. Town of Linden, 75 Wis. 24, 43 N. W. 656. 1294 See, also, generally the authorities cited under § 494, post. Carroll v. Siebenthaler, 37 Cal. 193; San Miguel County Com'rs v. Pierce, 6 N. M. 324, 28 Pac. 512. 1295 Nelson v. Merced County, 122 Cal. 644, 55 Pac. 421; Cass County Com'rs v. Crockett, 111 Ind. 316, 12 N. E. 486; May v. State, 133 Ind. 567, 33 N. E. 352; Greeley v. Cascade County, 22 Mont. 580; Miller v. City of Socorro, 9 N. M. 416, 54 Pac. 756; McDougall v. State, 109 N. Y. 73, 16 N. E. 78; Norton v. City of New York, 16 Misc. 303, 38 N. Y. Supp. 90. The provisions of the general statute extending the limitation of actions in the case of infants to one year after disability ceases, it is held do not apply to a specific provision requiring the filing of a notice of intention within six months after the injury has been received. Bissell v. State, 70 App. Div. 238, 73 N. Y. Supp. 1105; Corkings v. State, 99 N. Y. 491; Gates v. State, 128 N. Y. 221; Parmenter v. State, 135 N. Y. 154; Woods v. Madison County Sup'rs, 136 N. Y. 403. The effect of the statute of limitations may, however, be waived by the proper authorities, Shelby County v. Bickford, 102 Tenn. 395. Young Bond & Stock Co. v. Mitchell County, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 638, 54 S. W. 284; Dinwiddie County v. Stuart, 28 Grat. (Va.) 526. The statute of limitations will not run against a claim duly presented to the proper officers though they may have taken no official action upon it. 1296 Kelsea v. Manchester, 64 N. H. 570, 15 Atl. 206; Bolles v. Dalton, 59 N. H. 479. 1297 Saunders v. City of Boston, 167 Mass. 595. One is not excused by reason of physical incapacity from giving notice to the city of injuries resulting from an accident caused by a defective sidewalk when such injury is merely a sprained ankle. Barclay v. City of Boston, 167 Mass. 596; Sargent v. Town of Gilford, 66 N. H. 543, 27 Atl. 306; Hayes v. Town of Rochester, 64 N. H. 41; Currier v. City of Concord, 68 N. H. 294. A failure to inform claimant that her notice was insufficient will not be considered an unavoidable cause so as to permit her to file a sufficient notice after the time fixed by the statute had elapsed. Williams v. Village of Port Chester, 72 App. Div. 505, 76 N. Y. Supp. 631; Gonyeau v. Town of Milton, 48 Vt. 172. § 489. Manner of presentment. The manner of presentment is usually prescribed by statutory or charter provision, either by petition or notice to certain officials or official bodies.1298 The form may be established by rule, custom or law, and if this condition exists the cases usually hold that a claim presented in any other manner should not be con 1298 City of Connersville v. Connersville Hydraulic Co., 86 Ind. 184; Carberry v. Inhabitants of Sharon, 166 Mass. 32, 43 N. E. 912. A notice signed by the claimant's husband and which stated "that we will be obliged to make a claim on your town for damages" is a sufficient notice by the claimant. But a notice by the husband of claimant written by her authority but stating that he claims damages is held insufficient to maintain an action for injuries to the wife in the case of Keller v. Inhabitants of Winslow, 84 Me. 147. Robey v. Prince George's County Com'rs, 92 Md. 150, 48 Atl. 48. Judicial officers cannot be compelled to perform clerical or ministerial duties. Engstrom v. City of Minneapolis, 78 Minn. 200; Peterson v. Village of Cokato, 84 Minn. 205, 87 N. W. 615. Service of the notice required must be made on the proper official at the place where he transacts the official business pertaining to his office. (N. Y.) 49. If a claim is presented to the clerk of the common council, a statutory provision requiring it to be "presented to the common council for audit" is sufficiently complied with. Krall v. City of New York, 44 App. Div. (N. Y.) 259; In re Agar, 21 Misc. 145, 47 N. Y. Supp. 477; Burford v. City of New York, 26 App. Div. 225, 49 N. Y. Supp. 969. The service of a required notice by mail is insufficient; it must be delivered at the office in which the notice is required by law to be filed. See, also, Gates v. State, 128 N. Y. 221, holding the same. Hallinan v. Village of Ft. Edwards, 26 Misc. 422, 57 N. Y. Supp. 26. Where the law requires the presentation of a claim for payment to the "chief fiscal officer of the corporation," it is complied with by presenting to the treasurer of the board of water commissioners a claim against that board for constructing a system of waterworks. Baine v. City of Rochester, 85 N. Y. 523. It is immaterial that the officer is without power to either adjust or pay the claim; if the statute requires the presentment to an officer, its terms must be complied with. State v. Hallock, 20 Nev. 326, 22 Pac. 123; Stanton v. Town of Taylor, 64 Hun, 633, 19 N. Y. Supp. 43. Code of Civil Proc. § 3245, requiring the presentment of a claim "for payment to the chief fiscal officer" is sufficiently complied with by a presentation to the supervisors of the town where there is no town treasurer. Murphy v. City of Buffalo, 38 Hun provision requiring the presentment Coleman v. City of Fargo, 8 N. D. 69, 76 N. W. 1051; Glatfelter v. Com., 74 Pa. 74; Maloney v. Cook, 2 R. I. 471; Bacon v. City of Antigo, 103 Wis. 10, 79 N. W. 31. A sidered.1200 A verification of the claim is generally required,1300 and the absence of this may be a material fact to be considered in determining the legality or the justice of the alleged claim. The language of the petition or form if not prescribed by statute is not that ordinarily required to be used in the preparation of a claim for personal injuries to a city council is sufficiently complied with by filing it with the city clerk for presentation to the city council. See, also, the following cases: Brewster v. City of Hornellsville, 35 App. Div. N. Y. 626; City of Salina v. Kerr, 7 Kan. App. 223; City of Hutchinson v. Van Cleve, 7 Kan. App. 676; Canfield v. City of Jackson, 112 Mich. 120; Snyder v. City of Albion, 113 Mich. 275; Atherton v. Village of Bancroft, 114 Mich. 241; Selden v. Village of St. Johns, 114 Mich. 698; Chadbourne v. Town of Exeter, 67 N. H. 190; Davis v. Town of Rumney, 67 N. H. 591; City of Ft. Worth v. Shero, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 487; Benson v. City of Madison, 101 Wis. 321. 1299 Barrett v. City of Mobile, 129 Ala. 179, 30 So. 36; Hope v. Board of Liquidation, 41 La. Ann. 535, 6 So. 819; Hegele v. Polk County, 92 Iowa, 701, 61 N. W. 393; City of Syracuse v. Reed, 46 Kan. 520, 26 Pac. 1043. Claims should be presented to the city council in writing and allowed in the manner prescribed by statute. Noonan v. City of Lawrence, 130 Mass. 161; Miles v. City of Lynn, 130 Mass. 398; Lord v. City of Saco, 87 Me. 231; Cropper v. Mexico City, 62 Mo. App. 385. A statutory requirement that claims shall be presented in writing to the city council does not apply to one arising ex delicto. See also, as holding the same, Evans v. City of Joplin, 84 Mo. App. 296; Mears v. City of Spokane, 22 Wash. 323; Herring-Hall-Marvin Co. V Kroeger, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 672, 57 S. W. 980; Van Loan v. Village of Lake Mills, 88 Wis. 430; Northern Trust Co. v. Snyder, 113 Wis. 516, 89 N. W. 460. 1300 McCormack V. Tuolumne County, 37 Cal. 257; Rock Creek Tp. v. Codding, 42 Kan. 649; Moriarty v. Morris County Com'rs, 51 Kan. 199. The failure to file the affidavit required by Kan. Gen. St. 1889, c. 107, § 108, will result in a disallowance of the claim. City of Ottawa v. Black, 10 Kan. App. 439, 61 Pac. 985. The verification by an agent of the claimant is sufficient. Crittenden v. City of Mt. Clemens, 86 Mich. 220, 49 N. W. 144; Mead v. City of Lansing, 56 Mich. 601; Lay v. City of Adrian, 75 Mich. 438. Such a requirement does not apply to a suit for damages for personal injuries. Gillette Herzog Mfg. Co. V. Aitkin County Com'rs, 69 Minn. 297, 72 N. W. 123; Powder River Cattle Co., v. Custer County Com'rs, 95 Mont. 145, 22 Pac. 383. Such a requirement applies to a claim for the repayment of taxes paid under protest. Langstaff v. Daly, 49 N. J. Law, 403, 8 Atl. 526; Berry v. Daly, 50 N. J. Law, 356, 13 Atl. 6; James P. Hall Incorporated Co. v. Jersey City, 62 N. J. Eq. 489, 50 Atl. 603; Magee v. City of Troy, 48 Hun, 383, 1 N. Y. Supp. 24; Warrin v. Baldwin, 105 N. Y. 534, 12 N. E. 49; Sherman v. Village of Oneonta, 66 and drawing of formal pleadings.1301 The purpose of a petition or notice is to have placed before public officials, charged with certain prescribed duties, the facts and circumstances forming the basis of an alleged claim, so definite, certain and in detail that they can the better and more justly pass upon it.1302 The cases, Hun, 629, 21 N. Y. Supp. 137. That provision for the filing of claims verified by the claimant does not apply to an action ex delicto. Patterson v. City of Brooklyn, 6 App. Div. 127, 40 N. Y. Supp. 581; Pearson v. City of Seattle, 14 Wash. 438, 44 Pac. 884. An unverified claim is sufficient where no verification is required. Miller v. Crawford County, 106 Wis. 210; Myers v. Appleby, 25 S. C. 100; City of Enterprise v. Fowler, 38 Kan. 415, 16 Pac. 703. But see Mobile County v. Sands, 127 Ala. 493, 29 So. 26; Perry County v. Conway County, 52 Ark. 430, 6 L. R. A. 665; State v. Cass County Com'rs, 60 Neb. 566, 83 N. W. 733, and Downie v. Freeholders of Passaic County, 54 N. J. Law, 223, 23 Atl. 954. 1301 Dubois County Com'rs V. Wertz, 112 Ind. 268, 13 N. E. 874; Blackford County Com'rs v. Shrader, 26 Ind. 87; Tippecanoe County Com'rs v. Everett, 51 Ind. 543; Orange County Com'rs v. Ritter, 90 Ind. 362, overruling 87 Ind. 356; Howard County Com'rs v. Jennings, 104 Ind. 108, 3 N. E. 619; Powers v. City of St. Paul, 36 Minn, 87. The notice should be in writing. Clay County v. Chicksaw County, 76 Miss. 418, 24 So. 975; Shepard v. Easterling, 61 Neb. 882, 86 N. W. 941. A claim should be presented in writing and verified by affidavit. Quinn v. Town of Sempronius, 33 App. Div. 70, 53 N. Y. Supp. 325; LaFlamme v. City of Albany, 158 N. Y. 699; Maxwell v. Saluda County, 55 S. C. 382, 33 S. E. 457. 1302 Colusa County v. Welch, 122 Cal. 428, 55 Pac. 243; Roberts v. People, 9 Colo. 458, 13 Pac. 630; Breen v. Town of Cornwall, 73 Conn. 309, 47 Atl. 322; Wood v. Borough of Stafford Springs, 74 Conn. 437, 51 Atl. 129; Clyne V. Bingham County, 7 Idaho, 75, 60 Pac. 76; Cole v. Harrison County Com'rs, 3 Ind. App. 13, 28 N. E. 1031; Epenter V. Montgomery County, 98 Iowa, 159, 67 N. W. 93. The validity of the claim is not affected by the fact that claimant inIcluded in his itemized statement a demand not authorized by that particular method. Dale v. Webster County, 76 Iowa, 370. It is not necessary, however, in such a statement to include proof of death or a specification of the facts constituting the alleged negligence. City of Enterprise v. Fowler, 38 Kan. 415, 16 Pac. 703; City of Ottawa v. Black, 10 Kan. App. 439, 61 Pac. 985; White v. Inhabitants of Vassalborough, 82 Me. 67; Pendergast v. Inhabitants of Clinton, 147 Mass. 402, 18 N. E. 75; Brown v. City of Owosso, 126 Mich. 91, 85 N. W. 256; Wheeler v. City of Detroit, 127 Mich. 329, 86 N. W. 822; Gardner v. Newaygo County Sup'rs, 110 Mich. 94; Old Second Nat. Bank v. Town of Middletown, 67 Minn. 1, 69 N. W. 471; Robin v. Bartlett, 64 N. H. 426, 13 Atl. 645; Noble v. City of Portsmouth, 67 N. H. 183, 30 Atl. 419; Ayer v. Town |