The trial court dismissed plaintiff's suit, for failure to comply with the notice served on her by defendant. In the instant case the claim was filed with the city council and the corporation counsel received notice; hence, plaintiff complied with the requirements commented on in Grand Trunk Western Railway Company v. City of Detroit, 342 Mich. 537. But differing from the Grand Trunk Company Case, in the instant case defendant demanded plaintiff to come to a hearing before the corporation counsel.

Third-party plaintiffs are in this dilemma: either governmental immunity has not been waived as to an action for contribution such as they assert, or, if reliance is placed on the statute, third-party plaintiffs cannot insist on its benefits because the statutory 60-day notice was not given. In Grand Trunk Western Railroad Co. v. City of Detroit (1955), 342 Mich. 537, plaintiff's employee was injured by a sign the city had attached to a pole. The railroad, after settling its employee's claim, sought indemnification or contribution from the city.

(Syllabus 3.) That proof of claim is a condition precedent to recovery is also established by Springer v. City of Detroit, 102 Mich. 300; Moulthrop v. City of Detroit, 218 Mich. 464; and Grand Trunk W.R. Co. v. Detroit, 342 Mich. 537. We see no merit to plaintiff's contention that he did not have to comply with the charter provisions because "at the time of filing this suit appellant did not have any claim to present to the council, and still has no claim to present.

f July, 1956, plaintiff, through her husband, served due notice upon the city manager of the city of St. Johns, of the extent of the injury and her intention to claim damages thereof, in accordance with the ordinance and statute made and provided, and under the control and direction of the city manager of the city of St. Johns, Michigan, the defendant herein." On the first point, it is defendant's contention that service of the notice of claim upon defendant's city manager did not comply with the city charter requirement that the claim be presented to the city commission and that such failure is fatal to plaintiff's suit, citing Selden v. Village of St. Johns, 114 Mich. 698; Van Auken v. City of Adrian, 135 Mich. 534; Ridgeway v. City of Escanaba, 154 Mich. 68; Moulthrop v. City of Detroit, 218 Mich. 464; Kelley v. City of Flint, 251 Mich. 691; Northrup v. City of Jackson, 273 Mich. 20; Harrington v. City of Battle Creek, 288 Mich. 152; Sykes v. City of Battle Creek, 288 Mich. 660; Grand Trunk Western R. Co. v. City of Detroit, 342 Mich. 537. None of these cases presented the question, before us here, whether service of the claim upon the city manager complies with the requirement of presenting it to the city commission. In Ridgeway v. City of Escanaba, supra, this Court said that substantial compliance with the requirement for service of such notice of claim is sufficient.

In general, these provisions have been upheld by the courts. Northrup v. City of Jackson (1935), 273 Mich. 20; City of Detroit v. Michigan Paving Company (1878), 38 Mich. 358; Grand T.W.R. Co. v. City of Detroit (1955), 342 Mich. 537. However, it has been held that where the claim against the city involves a proprietary function of the city, as opposed to a governmental or municipal function, then notice and presentment-of-claims provisions do not apply and suit may be instituted as against any private party.