14-804. Claims; allowance; procedure; appeal.

Before any claim against the city, except officers' salaries earned within twelve months or interest on the public debt is allowed, the claimant or his agent or attorney shall verify the same by his affidavit, stating that the several items therein mentioned are just and true and the services charged therein or articles furnished, as the case may be, were rendered or furnished as therein charged, and that the amount therein charged and claimed is due and unpaid, allowing all just credits. The city comptroller and his deputy shall have authority to administer oaths and affirmations in all matters required by this section. All claims against the city must be filed with the city comptroller. When the claim of any person against the city is disallowed, in whole or in part, by the city council, such person may appeal from the decision of said city council to the district court of the same county, as provided in section 14-813.

Source

Annotations

1. Claims required to be filed

2. Claims not required to be filed

3. Provisions of warrant

4. Miscellaneous

1. Claims required to be filed

The filing of a claim pursuant to this section is a procedural prerequisite to the prosecution of a wage claim against a city in the district court. Hawkins v. City of Omaha, 261 Neb. 943, 627 N.W.2d 118 (2001).

Statute requiring all claims against city to be filed with city comptroller includes claims for pension and disability and is mandatory. Schmitt v. City of Omaha, 191 Neb. 608, 217 N.W.2d 86 (1974).

Claim for premiums on policemen's bond must be filed. Wheeler v. City of Omaha, 111 Neb. 494, 196 N.W. 894 (1924).

2. Claims not required to be filed

This section does not require filing of claim with city council for refund of taxes paid under protest. City of Omaha v. Hodgskins, 70 Neb. 229, 97 N.W. 346 (1903).

To collect award of damages on condemnation of property, it is not necessary to file claim with city council. City of Omaha v. Clarke, 66 Neb. 33, 92 N.W. 146 (1902).

3. Provisions of warrant

Warrant is not invalidated by unauthorized recitals. Rogers v. City of Omaha, 82 Neb. 118, 117 N.W. 119 (1908).

Warrant properly issued by the city is written acknowledgment of indebtedness and a promise to pay and arrests running of statute of limitations. Rogers v. City of Omaha, 80 Neb. 591, 114 N.W. 833 (1908).

Warrant which is a valid obligation, payable out of general fund, is not invalidated by a recital that it is payable out of a special fund which city is not authorized to create. Abrahams v. City of Omaha, 80 Neb. 271, 114 N.W. 161 (1907).

4. Miscellaneous

Application of the Wage Payment and Collection Act does not affect the need to satisfy the requisites of pursuing a claim against a city of the metropolitan class. Thompson v. City of Omaha, 235 Neb. 346, 455 N.W.2d 538 (1990).

The filing of a claim pursuant to this section is a procedural prerequisite to the prosecution of wage claims against the city. Thompson v. City of Omaha, 235 Neb. 346, 455 N.W.2d 538 (1990).

Requirements of this section must be met before a claim can be filed against the city. Litigants cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction on a judicial tribunal by either acquiescence or consent. Coffelt v. City of Omaha, 223 Neb. 108, 388 N.W.2d 467 (1986).

A condition precedent to seeking relief in district court on a claim against a city of the metropolitan class is that claimants must file a claim with the city comptroller. Halbleib v. City of Omaha, 222 Neb. 844, 388 N.W.2d 60 (1986).

Generally, before any court may acquire jurisdiction over a claim against a city of the metropolitan class, the procedures set out in this section must have been followed. Bolan v. Boyle, 222 Neb. 826, 387 N.W.2d 690 (1986).

A partial estimate by city engineer on paving contract and by him reported for approval and allowance is a claim against city and appeal will lie. Lobeck v. State ex rel. Nebraska Bitulithic Co., 72 Neb. 595, 101 N.W. 247 (1904).