injuries sustained by him by reason of the negligence of said city, its officials and employes; that such injuries were received by the undersigned on the day of 19, ats [specify particular locality, as: on the sidewalk on the west side of Fifth avenue, about 100 feet north of the north-west corner of Fifth avenue and Thirty-fourth street in said city], there being a deep hole or depression in the sidewalk at that point (and the street lights not being lit.)

Notice of claim against the City of New York.11

[Under 1901 Charter, § 261.]

In the Matter of the Claim

of

M. N. against the City of

New York.

12

The undersigned hereby makes demand against the city of New York for the sum of able certainty the character and

fairly implied from context, the notice is sufficient. Sheehy v. New York, 160 N. Y. 139; Shaw v. New York, 83 App. Div. 212, 82 N. Y. Supp. 44. 8 See paragraph 3, p. 519, and notes, as to necessary accuracy in specifying time and place.

9 A notice addressed to and filed with the comptroller, but by him sent to and filed by the corporation counsel, is a sufficient filing to comply with statute. Missano v. Mayor, 160 N. Y. 123; Halpin v. New York, 82 App. Div. 311, 81 N. Y. Supp. 982. Service by mail is ineffective when the statute requires filing. Burford r. Mayor, etc., of New York, 26 App. Div. 225, 49 N. Y. Supp. 969.

10 This additional presentation to

dollars [specify with reasondetails of claim; if for personal

comptroller for adjustment is essential in actions for tort as well as contract. Pulitzer v. City of New York, 48 App. Div. 6, 62 N. Y. Supp. 587.

11 Required in actions ex delicto as well as ex contractu. Pulitzer r. City of New York, 48 App. Div. 8, 62 N. Y. Supp. 587.

The filing of the claim must be alleged in the complaint and proved at the trial. Smith v. City of New York, 88 App. Div. 606, 85 N. Y. Supp. 150.

12 Where the claim is for unliquidated damages, the claimant is not limited to the estimated amount of damages as stated in his filed claim. Reed v. The Mayor, 97 N. Y. 620.

injuries or injuries to property, state general character of the injury, in addition to the details of time and place as in previous Form.] [Date.]

[Signature of Claimant.]

[Present to Comptroller; wait thirty days after such presentation before bringing action.]

FORM No. 281.

Notice to village of claim for personal injury or injury to property. [Under New York Village Law (L. 1897, c. 414), § 322].13 [Title as in Form No. 280.]

Please take notice that the undersigned hereby makes claim for damages against said village in the sum of $

for [personal injuries], which were sustained by reason of the negligence of said village of its officers, agents, and em

day of

ployes. Said injuries were received on the 19 , at about the hour of o'clock, at [specify accurately and as precisely as possible the place where injury occurred],1 and, were caused by the negligence of the officials and employes of said village [state nature of claim, as] in making and leaving in the highway at said place a deep excavation entirely unguarded and with no light of any kind thereon or near the same, and into which the undersigned fell by reason of such negligence.

[Date.]

[Signature of claimant.] [File with village clerk within six months after injury,16 and wait thirty days after presentation before suing.] [Verify claim, as if a pleading].

FORM No. 282.

Specifying defect in sidewalk.17

[As in previous form to *, continuing:] by reason of a decayed and defective portion of the sidewalk at said place; that the particular defect in said sidewalk consisted of one or more loose and decayed planks therein; that said plank or planks at the point

13 Does not apply to an action in equity to enjoin a nuisance. Geron r. Village of Liberty, 106 App. Div. 357, 94 N. Y. Supp. 949.

14 See paragraph 3, p. 519, as to accuracy required.

15 Filing with deputy city clerk sufficient, when by him delivered to

city clerk. Beyer v. Tonawanda, 183 N. Y. 338.

16 Consult local charter for possibly shorter limitations. See Green v. Port Jervis, 55 App. Div. 58, 66 N. Y. Supp. 1042.

17 Sustained in Beyer v. Tonawanda, 183 N. Y. 338.

aforesaid were rotten and decayed at the ends and loose at one or both ends, and that when the undersigned attempted to cross such portion of said defective sidewalk he was tripped and thrown violently to the ground.

FORM No. 283.

Notice of injury to person or property given to city of second class. [Under second-class cities charter (L. 1898, chap. 182), § 461; as amended L. 1904, chap. 504.]18

[As in Form 281 to the end, adding thereto the nature and extent of the injuries, so far as then practicable, as:] that the injuries resulting therefrom, so far as now ascertainable, are [specify with particularity]. That the undersigned claimant resides at [street and number, or such description as will disclose place of residence.] 19

[Signature and verification of Claimant.] [Present to Common Council 20 within three months after injury received.]

FORM No. 284.

Excuse for failure to serve notice within statutory period.21

[Add to notice as in preceding Forms:] That the reason why this notice has not been heretofore served is that since said injuries to me I have not been in a mental or physical condition to make or prepare a statement of the same or to be able to transact business of any nature, and this date is the first day I have

been in condition to furnish such a notice or to learn that a cause of action has accrued to me by reason of the facts hereinbefore stated.

NOTICE UNDER NEW YORK EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY LAW.22

1. When notice required.]— The act does not affect the common law liability of the employer, or require a notice by the employe in order to enforce such common law liability.23 Service of the notice, as required by the statute, is a condition precedent to a recovery under the statutory liability.24

2. Construction of notice.]- The act provides that inaccuracy in stating the time, place, or cause of the injury shall not invalidate the notice if the employer was not in fact misled thereby and there was no intention to mislead.25

FORM No. 285.

Notice to employer under New York Employers' Liability Law.26

To [name of employer].

day of

19 and

Please take notice that on the while in your employ, I was injured at [specify place with reasonable certainty, as] the building at the corner of Fifth avenue and Thirty-fourth street in the borough of Manhattan, in course of construction by you; the cause of the injury was [specify― and if two or more possible causes co-erist, include all-as:] the negligence of one M., who was your foreman or superintendent in charge of the work in which I was engaged, and whose sole or prin

22 L. 1902, chap. 600. Notice may be typewritten. Hunt r. Dexter Sulphite Co., 100 App. Div. 119, 91 N. Y. Supp. 279.

23 Gmaehle v. Rosenberg, 178 N. Y. 147; O'Neil r. Karr, 110 App. Div. 571, 97 N. Y. Supp. 148; Rosin v. Lidgerwood Mfg. Co., 89 App. Div. 245, 86 N. Y. Supp. 49.

Plaintiff may, if his facts warrant it, count both on the master's com mon law liability, and on the liability created by this act. Mulligan v. Erie R. R. Co., 99 App. Div. 499, 91 N. Y. Supp. 60. An unnecessary averment of notice may be regarded as surplusage. Holm 1. Empire Hardw. Co., 102 App. Div. 505, 92 N. Y. Supp. 914.

24 Grasso v. Holbrook, etc., Co., 102 App. Div. 49, 92 N. Y. Supp. 101. It was suggested in Johnson v. Roach, 83 App. Div. 351, 82 N. Y. Supp. 203, that a complaint served on the em ployer might be effective as a notice upon which to found a second action upon discontinuing the first one.

25 Plaintiff must establish this affirmatively. Hughes v. Russell, 104 App. Div. 144, 93 N. Y. Supp. 307 (employe named as John H., instead of Michael J. H., and cause of injury also misstated; notice held fatally de fective in absence of evidence showing no actual misleading, or intent to mislead).

cipal duty was superintendence thereof, in sending me to place blocks underneath the bottom of a tank then and there being lowered, and failing to properly guard against its falling. That the bottom of said tank fell upon me by reason of such negligence.27 [Date.] [Signature of employe.]

[Serve within 120 days from injury, or 10 days after employe's incapacity is removed; in case of employe's death from injury, within 60 days after appointment of representative.]28

[Serve personally, or by mail.]

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY OF FOREIGN CORPORATION.

No foreign stock corporation doing business in the State can maintain an action in the State of New York, upon any contract made by it in the State,30 unless prior to the making of such contract it shall have procured a certificate of authority from the Secretary of State.

The New York General Corporation Law, §§ 15, 16, prescribes the circumstances under, and the method by which this certificate of authority may be obtained.

No form of certificate of authority is presented, as it will be furnished from official blanks upon proper application to the Secretary of State.

26 The notice is fatally defective when it omits the place of the injury, how it happened, and, when no particular act of incompetence is charged, in what manner defendant's representatives were negligent. Miller v. Solvay Process Co., 109 App. Div. 135, 95 N. Y. Supp. 1020.

27 See, as to the extended liability under the act: Rettagliatta r. Hayward, 180 N. Y. 512; McHugh v. Manh. Ry. Co., 179 id. 378.

28 Notice by representative 97 days after appointment, but within 120 days of the injury causing death, is timely. Hoehn v. Lautz, 94 App. Div. 14, 87 N. Y. Supp. 921. Contra, Randall v. Holbrook, etc., Co., 95 App. Div. 336, 88 N. Y. Supp. 681.

29 As to what is doing business

within the meaning of the statute, see Penn. Collieries Co. v. McKeever, 183 N. Y. 98, and cases examined; South Bay Co. v. Howey, 113 App. Div. 382; Citizens' State Bank v. Cowles, 89 App. Div. 281, 86 N. Y. Supp. 38 (rev'd on another point, 180 N. Y. 346). Only foreign stock corporations are within the prohibition of the statute. South Bay Co. v. Howey, supra.

30 The prohibition extends to as tions upon contract only. A foreign corporation may bring a judgment creditors' action (Schlitz Brewing Co. r. Ester, 86 Hun, 22, 33 N. Y. Supp. 143, aff'd, 157 N. Y. 714), replevin (Am. Typef. Co. v. Connor, 6 Mise. 391, 26 N. Y. Supp. 742), foreclosure of mechanic's lien (Matter of Simonds Furnace Co., 30 Misc. 209).