391 termination of constructive notice involves the question of due care and diligence in the discovery of defeets. It depends upon the volume or character of travel,392 the materials used in the construction or the repair of an improvement,"93 and the character of the defect itself as one easily discovered, open and notorious or Miss. 618, 13 So. 626. Within an hour or two before accident. Taylor v. Village of Mt. Vernon, 58 Hun, 384, 12 N. Y. Supp. 25; Riley v. Town of Eastchester, 18 App. Div. 94, 45 N. Y. Supp. 448; Morgan v. Village of Penn Yan, 42 App. Div. 582, 59 N. Y. Supp. 504; Hawkins v. City of New York, 54 App. Div. 258, 66 N. Y. Supp. 623; Breil v. City of Buffalo, 144 N. Y. 163, 38 N. E. 977. See later case, Id., 156 N. Y. 699, 51 N. E. 1089, holding that a city is chargeable with notice when an obstruction stands for three or four days in one of its much-used streets. Mattimore v. City of Erie, 144 Pa. 14, 22 Atl. 817; Otto Tp. v. Wolf, 106 Pa. 608; Burns v. City of Bradford, 137 Pa. 361, 20 Atl. 997, 11 L. R. A. 726; Carroll v. Allen, 20 R. I. 541, 40 Atl. 419; Hiner v. City of Fond du Lac, 71 Wis. 74, 36 N. W. 632; Cooper v. City of Milwaukee, 97 Wis. 458, 72 N. W. 1130. But see McPherson v. District of Columbia, 7 Mackey (D. C.) 564. 391 District of Columbia v. Payne, 13 App. D. C. 500; Cusick v. City of Norwich, 40 Conn. 375; City of Atlanta v. Perdue, 53 Ga. 607; City of Chicago v. Hoy, 75 Ill. 530; City of Streator v. Chrisman, 182 Ill. 215, 54 N. E. 997; Rosenberg v. City of Des Moines, 41 Iowa, 415; Lorig v. City of Davenport, 99 Iowa, 479, 68 N. W. 717; City of Abilene v. Cowperthwait, 52 Kan. 324, 34 Pac. 795; Bourget v. City of Cambridge, 159 Mass. 388; Moon v. City of Ionia, 81 Mich. 635, 46 N. W. 25; Bettys v. Denver Tp., 115 Mich. 228, 73 N. W. 138; Randall v. Southfield Tp., 116 Mich. 501, 74 N. W. 716; Corey v. City of Ann Arbor, 124 Mich. 134, 82 N. W. 804; Stellwagen v. City of Winona, 54 Minn. 460, 56 N. W. 51; Market v. City of St. Louis, 56 Mo. 189; Squires v. City of Chillicothe, 89 Mo. 226, 1 S. W. 23; Williams v. City of Hannibal, 94 Mo. App. 549, 68 S. W. 380; City of Lincoln v. Pirner, 59 Neb. 634, 81 N. W. 846; Smith v. City of Rochester, 79 Hun, 174, 29 N. Y. Supp. 539; Dorn v. Town of Oyster Bay, 84 Hun, 510, 32 N. Y. Supp. 341; Boyce v. Town of Shawangunk, 40 App. Div. 593, 58 N. Y. Supp. 26; Todd v. City of Troy, 61 N. Y. 506; Jones V. City of Greensboro, 124 N. C. 310, 32 S. E. 675; City of Lynchburg v. Wallace, 95 Va. 640, 29 S. E. 675; Brown v. Town of Swanton, 69 Vt. 53, 37 Atl. 280; Cowie v. City of Seattle, 22 Wash. 659, 62 Pac. 121. But see Pearl v. Benton Tp., 123 Mich. 411, 82 N. W. 226. 392 City of Denver v. Moewes, 15 Colo. App. 28, 60 Pac. 986; Wilberding v. City of Dubuque, 111 Iowa, 484, 82 N. W. 957; Baxter v. City of Cedar Rapids, 103 Iowa, 599, 72 N. W. 790; Hembling v. City of Grand Rapids, 99 Mich. 292, 58 N. W. 310; Laurie v. City of Ballard, 25 Wash. 127, 64 Pac. 906. 393 Town of Wheaton v. Hadley, 131 Ill. 640, 23 N. E. 422; Weber v. City of Creston, 75 Iowa, 16, 39 N. W. 126; Moore v. Kenockee Tp., 75 one which is slight and not easily ascertained.394 The opportunity and means possessed by a public corporation for the discovery of defects is also an important consideration.395 §1039. How proved. Constructive notice or knowledge may be proved by evidence of the condition and the existence 396 of a particular defect complained of at the time of injury or prior thereto,397 or in some cases by proof of the general condition in that immediate place 398 Mich. 332, 42 N. W. 944, 4 L. R. A. 555; Green v. Town of Nebagamain, 113 Wis. 508, 89 N. W. 520. 394 Balls v. Woodward, 51 Fed. 646; City of Chicago v. Fowler, 60 III. 322; Broburg v. City of Des Moines, 63 Iowa, 523; Hunt v. City of Dubuque, 96 Iowa, 314; Jones v. City of Clinton, 100 Iowa, 333; City of Salina v. Kerr, 7 Kan. App. 223, 52 Pac. 901; Chase v. City of Lowell, 151 Mass. 422, 24 N. E. 212; Snyder v. City of Albion, 113 Mich. 275, 71 N. W. 475; McGrail v. City of Kalamazoo, 94 Mich. 52, 53 N. W. 955; Lindholm v. City of St. Paul, 19 Minn. 245 (Gil. 204); Anderson v. Albion, 64 Neb. 280, 89 N. W. 794; Beekman v. City of New York, 18 Misc. 509, 41 N. Y. Supp. 990; Lohr v. Borough of Philipsburg, 165 Pa. 109, 30 Atl. 822; Rosevere v. Borough of Osceola Mills, 169 Pa. 555; 32 Atl. 548; Rushton v. City of Allegheny, 192 Pa. 574, 44 Atl. 249; Elster v. City of Seattle, 18 Wash. 304, 51 Pac. 394; Crites v. City of New Richmond, 98 Wis. 55, 73 N. W. 322. But see Bellamy v. City of Atlanta, 75 Ga. 167. 395 Moore v. City of Minneapolis, 19 Minn. 300 (Gil. 258); Masters v. City of Troy, 50 Hun, 485, 3 N. Y. Supp. 450. Abb. Corp. Vol. III — 23. 396 Kellogg v. Village of Jaynesville, 34 Minn. 132. 397 City of Chicago v. Dalle, 115 Ill. 386; Parker v. City of Ottumwa, 113 Iowa, 649, 85 N. W. 805; Pettengill v. City of Yonkers, 116 N. Y. 558, 22 N. E. 1095; Butcher v. City of Philadelphia, 202 Pa. 1, 51 Atl. 330; Scott v. Provo City, 14 Utah, 31, 45 Pac. 1005. 398 City of Taylorville v. Stafford, 196 Ill. 288, 63 N. E. 624; Armstrong v. Town of Ackley, 71 Iowa, 76, 32 N. W. 180; Munger v. City of Waterloo, 83 Iowa, 559, 49 N. W. 1028; Smith v. City of Des Moines, 84 Iowa, 685, 51 N. W. 77; Aryman v. City of Marshalltown, 90 Iowa, 350, 57 N. W. 867; O'Neil v. Village of West Branch, 281 Mich. 544, 45 N. W. 1023; Edwards v. Common Council of Three Rivers, 102 Mich. 153, 60 N. W. 454; Strudgeon v. Village of Sand Beach, 107 Mich. 496, 65 N. W. 616; Will v. Village of Mendon, 108 Mich. 251, 66 N. W. 58; Boyle v. City of Saginaw, 124 Mich. 348, 82 N. W. 1057; Gude v. City of Mankato, 30 Minn. 256; Burrows v. Village of Lake Crystal, 61 Minn. 357, 63 N. W. 745; Smallwood v. City of Tipton, 63 Mo. App. 234; Chacey v. City of Fargo, 5 N. D. 173, 64 N. W. 932; City of Belton v. Turner (Tex. Civ. App.) 27 S. W. or at a time different 399 from that when the accident occurred if followed by proof that the conditions were the same at the times alleged.400 The presence of a public official at the defect, the fact that one resided in close proximity to it,402 a report of the defect by officials, 403 or official directions for its repair,404 is considered proper evidence tending to show notice to the corporation. 401 (a) Other accidents. For the purpose of proving constructive notice only, evidence is admissible as to the happenings of similar. accidents at the same place and caused by the same defect." Such 831; Laurie v. City of Ballard, 25 Wash. 127, 64 Pac. 906; Viellesse v. City of Green Bay, 110 Wis. 160, 85 N. W. 665. But see Carter v. Town of Monticello, 68 Iowa, 178; Dundas v. City of Lansing, 75 Mich. 499, 42 N. W. 1011, 5 L. R. A. 143; Village of Shelby v. Clagett, 46 Ohio St. 549, 22 N. E. 407, 5 L. R. A. 606. 399 Beaver v. City of Eagle Grove, 116 Iowa, 485, 89 N. W. 1100; Ledgerwood v. Webster City, 93 Iowa, 726; City of Ottawa v. Black, 10 Kan. App. 439, 61 Pac. 985. Evidence of an examination a year of the accident properly excluded. Butts v. City of Eaton Rapids, 116 Mich. 539, 74 N. W. 872; Scheel v. City of Detroit, 130 Mich. 51, 89 N. W. 554; rehearing denied 130 Mich. 51, 90 N. W. 274; Alberts v. Village of Vernon, 96 Mich. 549, 55 N. W. 1022; Mitchell v. City of Plattsburg, 33 Mo. App. 555; City of Omaha v. Coombe, 48 Neb. 879; Pettengill v. City of Yonkers, 116 N. Y. 558, 22 N. E. 1095; Wiltse v. "Town of Tilden, 77 Wis. 152, 46 N. W. 234. But see City of Goshen v. England, 119 Ind. 368, 21 N. E. 977, 5 L. R. A. 253. 400 Hunt v. City of Dubuque,. 96 Iowa, 314, 65 N. W. 319; Bailey v. City of Centerville, 108 Iowa, 20, 78 N. W. 831. 405 401 Doan V. Town of Willow Springs, 101 Wis. 112, 76 N. W. 1104. 402 Malloy v. Walker Tp., 77 Mich. 448, 43 N. W. 1012, 6 L. R. A. 695; La Duke v. Exeter Tp., 97 Mich. 450, 56 N. W. 851; Smalley v. City of Appleton, 75 Wis. 18, 43 N. W. 826. 403 Bond v. City of Biddeford, 75 Me. 538. 404 Butler v. Town of Malvern, 91 Iowa, 397, 59 N. W. 50; City of Pittsburg v. Broderson, 10 Kan. App. 430, 62 Pac. 5; Grattan v. Village of Williamston, 116 Mich. 462, 74 N. W. 668; Thompson v. Village of Quincy, 83 Mich. 173, 47 N. W. 114, 10 L. R. A. 734; Erd v. City of St. Paul, 22 Minn. 443. But see Lappread v. City of Detroit, 95 Mich. 255, 54 N. W. 870. 405 Osborne v. City of Detroit, 32 Fed. 36; Gilmer v. City of Atlanta, 77 Ga. 688; City of Goshen v. England, 119 Ind. 368, 21 N. E. 977, 5 L. R. A. 253; Moore v. City of Burlington, 49 Iowa, 136; Wilberding v. City of Dubuque, 111 Iowa, 484, 82 N. W. 957; Smith v. City of Des Moines, 84 Iowa, 685, 51 N. W. 77. Such evidence admissible as tending to show defect. Bailey v. City of Centerville, 115 Iowa, 271, 88 N. W. 379; Cason v. City of Ottumwa, 102 Iowa, 99; Woodbury v. City of evidence is not proper to establish a liability in another case nor can the fact that similar accidents have happened at the same place and caused by the same defect create a liability.406 There are authorities holding that evidence of other accidents occurring at the same place is not admissible even for the purpose of showing a knowledge of the defect. 407 The admission of evidence of this character is likely to be prejudicial. The better reasons sustain the latter line of decisions. (b) Subsequent or prior repairs. The fact that proper officials have, subsequent to an injury, repaired the defect causing that injury, made general repairs or improvements, is not admissible for the purpose of establishing constructive notice.408 It is also true. Owosso, 64 Mich. 239, 31 N. W. 130; Lombar v. Village of East Tawas, 86 Mich. 14, 48 N. W. 947; Smith v. Sherwood Tp., 62 Mich. 159, 28 N. W. 806; Moore v. City of Kalama200, 109 Mich. 176, 66 N. W. 1089; Alberts v. Village of Vernon, 96 Mich. 549, 55 N. W. 1022; Leonard v. City of Butte, 25 Mont. 410, 65 Pac. 425; Stebbins v. Village of Oneida, 52 Hun, 613, 5 N. Y. Supp. 483; Fordham v. Gouverneur Village, 160 N. Y. 541, 55 N. E. 290; Elster v. City of Seattle, 18 Wash. 304, 51 Pac. 394; Piper v. City of Spokane, 22 Wash. 147, 60 Pac. 138; Little v. Town of Iron River, 102 Wis. 250, 78 N. W. 416. But see Lord v. City of Mobile, 113 Ala. 360; Johnson v. City of St. Paul, 52 Minn. 364; Cook v. New Durham, 64 N. H. 419, 13 Atl. 650; Grundy V. City of Janesville, 84 Wis. 574. 406 But see City of Bloomington v. Legg, 151 Ill. 9, 37 N. E. 696; Golden v. City of Clinton, 54 Mo. App. 100. 407 District of Columbia v. Armes, 107 U. S. 519; Mathews v. City of Cedar Rapids. 80 Iowa, 459, 45 N. W. 894; Frohs v. City of Dubuque, 109 Iowa, 219, 80 N. W. 341; Bremner v. Inhabitants of Newcastle, 83 Me. 415, 22 Atl. 382; McGrail v. City of Kalamazoo, 44 Mich. 52, 53 N. W. 955; Goble v. Kansas City, 148 Mo. 470, 50 S. W. 84; Norris v. Haverhill, 65 N. H. 89; City of San Antonio v. Mullaly, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 596; Shelley v. City of Austin, 74 Tex. 608, 12 S. W. 753; Moore v. City of Richmond, 85 Va. 538, 8 S. E. 387; Richards v. City of Oshkosh, 81 Wis. 226, 51 N. W. 256; See, also, Marvin v. City of New Bedford, 158 Mass. 464, 33 N. E. 605; Hillesum v. City of New York, 22 N. Y. State Rep. 420, 4 N. Y. Supp. 806; Getty v. Town of Hamlin, 127 N. Y. 636. 408 City of Chicago v. Richardson, 75 Ill. App. 198; Sylvester v. Town of Casey, 110 Iowa, 256, 81 N. W. 455; City of Emporia v. Schmidling, 33 Kan. 485; Kennedy v. City of Cumberland, 65 Md. 514; Sweeney v. City of New York, 63 Hun, 630, 17 N. Y. Supp. 797; Getty v. Town of Hamlin, 127 N. Y. 636, 27 N. E. 399, reversing 55 Hun, 603, 8 N. Y. Supp. 190; Dillon v. City of Raleigh, 124 N. C. 184, 32 S. E. 548; Rushton v. City of Allegheny, 192 Pa. 574, 44 Atl. 249; City of Dallas v. as in the case of the happening of other accidents that the mere making of subsequent repairs cannot create a liability on the part of the public corporation. The making of repairs or of improvements subsequent to an accident cannot properly be construed as evidence of previous negligence,409 though the making of repairs a short time before an accident has been held to constitute sufficient notice of the defect to fix a liability.*10 § 1040. Notice; when not necessary. No notice is necessary to establish negligence on the part of the public corporation in its acts of commission 11 or where the defect has been caused by others under its express authority and Meyers (Tex. Civ. App.) 55 S. W. 742; Moore v. City of Platteville, 78 Wis. 644, 47 N. W. 1055; Barrett v. Village of Hammond, 87 Wis. 654, 58 N. W. 1053. But see Osborne v. City of Detroit, 32 Fed. 36; City of Vandalia v. Ropp, 39 Ill. App. 344; City of East Dubuque v. Burhyte, 74 Ill. App. 99; City of Anna v. Boren, 77 Ill. App. 408; Smith v. City of Pella, 86 Iowa, 236, 53 N. W. 226; Frohs v. City of Dubuque, 109 Iowa, 219, 80 N. W. 341; Rusher v. City of Aurora, 71 Mo. App. 418; Sprague v. City of Rochester, 52 App. Div. 53, 64 N. Y. Supp. 846. Where evidence of this character was admitted on the question of the officer's authority. 409 Castello v. Landwehr, 28 Wis. 522. But see City of Olathe v. Mizee, 48 Kan. 435, 29 Pac. 754. 410 Stebbins V. Keene Tp., 60 Mich. 214, 26 N. W. 885; Brown v. City of Owosso, 130 Mich. 107, 89 N. W. 568. But see Abbott v. City of Mobile, 119 Ala. 595, 24 So. 565. 411 City of Chicago v. Powers, 42 Ill. 169; City of Chicago v. Johnson, 53 Ill. 91; Alexander v. Town of Mt. Sterling, 71 Ill. 366; Village of Jef ferson v. Chapman, 127 Ill. 438, 20 N. E. 33; Boone County Com'rs v. Mutchler, 137 Ind. 140, 36 N. E. 534; Lowrey v. City of Delphi, 55 Ind. 250; City of Goshen v. Myers, 119 Ind. 196, 21 N. E. 657; Weirs v. Jones County, 80 Iowa, 351; Holmes v. Inhabitants of Paris, 75 Me. 559; Buck v. City of Biddeford, 82 Me. 433, 19 Atl. 912; Jones v. City of Deering, 94 Me. 165, 47 Atl. 140; Guest v. Com'rs of Church Hill, 90 Md. 689, 45 Atl. 882; McKeller v. Monitor Tp., 78 Mich. 485; City of Lincoln v. Calvert, 39 Neb. 305; Tompkins v. City of Oswego, 61 Hun, 619, 15 N. Y. Supp. 371; Twist v. City of Rochester, 37 App. Div. 307, 55 N. Y. Supp. 850; Wilson v. City of Troy, 135 N. Y. 96, 32 N. E. 44, 18 L. R. A. 449; Ludlow v. City of Fargo, 3 N. D. 485; Hager v. Wharton Tp., 200 Pa. 281, 49 Atl 757; Rowland v. City of Philadel phia, 202 Pa. 50, 51 Atl. 589; Ringelstein v. City of San Antonio (Tex. Civ. App.) 21 S. W. 634; Evans v. City of Huntington, 37 W. Va. 601, 16 S. E. 801; Boltz v. Town of Sullivan, 101 Wis. 608, 77 N. W. 870; Hughes v. City of Fond du Lac, 73 |