McHugh v. Voyce

California Court of Appeal Jan 30, 1929 No. Docket No. 6571.Published

Before: Lucas

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that property owners waived their right to challenge street improvement assessments by failing to exhaust administrative remedies, and that they failed to provide sufficient evidence of an alleged conspiracy to stifle competitive bidding.

Issues

Whether property owners waived objections to street improvement proceedings by failing to appeal to the board of public works or supervisors.
Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish an unlawful conspiracy to prevent competitive bidding.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Errors not jurisdictional are waived by failure to appeal to the proper board or authority.”

“No collusion or conspiracy having been shown, it is not necessary to pass upon the question as to whether or not the curative provisions of the ordinance are applicable thereto.”

LUCAS, J.,

pro

tem.

Four actions are involved in this appeal, three brought by Frank J. McHugh, a street contractor, against several property owners to foreclose certain street improvement liens created pursuant to the “1918 street improvement ordinance” of San Francisco, and one by said property owners against the same McHugh and members of the board of public works of San Francisco to cancel the assessments upon which the liens were based. In this latter action the said McHugh filed a cross-complaint similar to his complaints filed in the other three actions.

In all four actions the liens in question arose by reason of the same assessment proceedings. They were therefore consolidated and tried together. But one judgment. was rendered. This was in favor of the said McHugh. From this judgment appeal is taken by the property owners, plaintiffs in one suit and defendants in the others.

Under the provisions of the 1918 street improvement ordinance of San Francisco, in actions of this character, the “warrant, assessment and diagram, with the affidavit of demand and nonpayment, shall be held

prima facie

evidence of the regularity and correctness of the assessment and of the prior proceedings and acts of the Board of Public Works and of the Supervisors upon which said warrant, assessment and diagram are based, and like evidence of the right of the plaintiff to recover in the action.”

At the trial there was offered and received in evidence in behalf of the respondent herein and without objection by appellants, the warrant, assessment and diagram, together with the affidavit of demand and nonpayment covering the liens in question. This made out a

prima facie

case in so far as the foreclosure suits were concerned and east upon the appellants the burden of proving the matters set out in their answers. As to the action brought to cancel the assessments, the burden of proof at all times rested upon appellants.

Appellants in their several pleadings attempt to contest the validity of the liens in question upon various grounds, and attack the validity and legality of the respective steps taken in the stfceet improvement proceedings upon which the liens are based. At the trial they offered certain evi

McHugh v. Voyce

AI Brief

LUCAS, J.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief