Stock v. Sites

BUCK, P. J.,

pro tem.

This is an action to quiet title against a lien arising out of the issuance of a bond for street improvements on plaintiff’s lot in the city of San Jose. Plaintiff had judgment, from which defendant appeals.

Appellant’s contention in this case that the street in question had not been previously accepted has been sustained by the supreme court in the case of

Ransome-Crummey Co.

v.

Bennett,

177 Cal. 560, [171 Pac. 304].

Also respondent’s contention that the Bond Act under which the bond in question was issued does not apply to San

[646]

Jose has been recently disposed of in appellant’s favor by this court in the ease of

Ahlman

v.

Barber Asphalt Paving Co. et al., ante,

p. 395, [181 Pac. 238].

[1]

Further, for the purpose of sustaining the judgment, respondent in this court contends for the first time that from a certain paragraph in defendant’s answer and the finding made thereon it appears “that there was no authority in law to issue” the bonds in question. Respondent quotes as follows from the answer and finding: “That before the passing of the resolution . . . careful estimates of the costs and expenses thereof had been required by it to be furnished to said common council by the city engineer of said city. ’ ’

Relying upon this, respondent claims that the bend issue is defective because it does not appear from defendant’s answer and finding herein that there was a compliance with section 3 of the Vrooman Act, which provides that “before passing any resolution for the construction of said improvements, plans and specifications, and careful estimates of the cost and expenses thereof