Locke v. Cowan

LENNON, P. J.

These two actions were instituted in the superior court of the county of Sonoma by the plaintiff against the defendants for the foreclosure of certain assessment liens, arising out of street work performed in the city of Santa Rosa, pursuant to proceedings instituted by the city council under the provisions of the city charter.

The plaintiff secured a judgment in each case, decreeing the foreclosure of the respective liens, from which the defendants have appealed in each case, and both cases are here upon a single record.

The demurrer to the plaintiff’s complaint was properly overruled. Generally speaking, a substantial compliance with the jurisdictional requirements of the statutory provisions permitting and pertaining to the inauguration and performance of street work must be shown before the enforcement of a lien arising out of a contract for the doing of the work can be had. But as a matter of pleading, it is not essential to the statement of a cause of action for the foreclosure of such lien to plead the particulars of the jurisdictional proceedings which are an essential prerequisite to the making of the contract. • It will suffice to plead such jurisdictional prerequisites in general terms and according to their legal effect. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 456.) This was done in the cases before us by alleging that “upon and pursuant to due and legal proceedings had and taken by the council of the said city of Santa Rosa, a contract in due form and containing the matters and the conditions prescribed by law was . . . made and entered into by and between the plaintiff and the said city for the doing of certain [described] work.” This mode of pleading jurisdictional prerequisites in cases of this character has frequently been held to be sufficient.

(Pacific Paving Co.

v.

Bolton,

97 Cal. 8, [31 Pac. 625];

Himmelman

v.

Danos,

35 Cal. 441;

Williams

v.

Bergin,

127. Cal. 578, [60 Pac. 164] ;

Gurnsey

v.