City Construction Co. v. Kenny

KOFORD, P. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment foreclosing a lien on defendant’s property for street work done under public contract and street proceedings had and taken under the provisions of the San Francisco Street Improvement Ordinance of 1918, Ordinance No. 4720 (New Series).

It is claimed that the assessment is void in that it amounts to more than fifty per cent of the value of the land

[242]

as assessed for municipal purposes. (San Francisco Charter, art. VI, chap. 2, sec. 33.) This charter provision, however, by its terms does not apply to any assessment made payable in installments. Appellant states that her assessment was not made payable in installments. This we take to mean that, although the resolution of intention stated that the assessment may be paid in installments, yet because of the failure of appellant to comply with the provisions of sections 33 and 34 of the ordinance she no longer has the right to pay in installments. It is claimed that these provisions of the ordinance are invalid because contrary to the charter provisions. These points have been considered by the supreme court and decided adversely to the contention of appellant.

(Fay Improvement Co.

v.

Hanlon,

193 Cal. 709 [227 Pac. 482];

Eaton

v.

Hanlon,

193 Cal. 715 [227 Pac. 484];

Federal Construction Co.

v.

Wolfson,

186 Cal. 267 [29 A. L. R. 1098, 199 Pac. 512].)

Something is said in appellant’s brief to the effect that the city engineer had promised appellant not to assess her land for work done in the alley when she conveyed the right of way to the city. The testimony on this point is meager and equivocal. We do not understand appellant to claim that this was an issue in the case. It was not. No way is pointed out how it could be an issue in this foreclosure proceeding nor how such a promise, even if made and broken, could invalidate the assessment for the public work done.