Union Contracting & Paving Co. v. Campbell
Before: Hall
Synopsis
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, and from an order denying a new trial. Thomas F. Graham, Judge.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
HALL, J.
This is an action to foreclose the lien of an assessment for curbing and paving a portion of Market street in San Francisco. Plaintiff had judgment, and certain of the defendants moved for a- new trial, and upon the denial of their motion appealed from the order and judgment.
It appears from the complaint, findings, and evidence that the contract to do the work was let by the superintendent of streets, dated January 26, 1896, in which the time
[535]
limited for the performance of the work was fixed at one hundred and twenty days from the date of the contract. On March 4, 1896, the contractor was, at the suit of a third person—that is, a person not a party to this action, nor an officer of the municipality—enjoined by the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco from performing-the work. This injunction remained in force until November 28, 1898, when the action was dismissed by the plaintiff therein; and on said day the board of supervisors and street superintendent granted an extension of the time for the performance of the contract, and the work was done during such extension and a second extension. On the record presented here the time for performing the contract had long since expired, and the contract lapsed before any extension was granted
(Turney
v.
Dougherty,
53 Cal. 619;
Beveridge
v.
Livingstone,
54 Cal. 54;
Mappa
v.
Los Angeles,
61 Cal. 309;
Palmer
v.
Burnham,
120 Cal. 364, [52 Pac. 664];
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)