Walsh v. Swanson
Before: Needham
NEEDHAM, J.,
pro tem.
This is an action to foreclose a street assessment lien. The work performed was the construction of a sidewalk in front of the defendant’s property. The assessment was a public assessment and not by private contract.
In the court below the plaintiff obtained a decree of foreclosure and order of sale, which decree and order is dated the tenth day of January, 1918. Findings of fact were' waived by stipulation of the parties. The defendant made a motion for a new trial, which was denied March 2, 1918, and thereafter in due time the defendant appealed from the whole of said judgment and in pursuance of sections 941a, 941b, and 941c of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The defendant presents two grounds of appeal, namely: A—The work and materials, to be performed and furnished,
[588]
were not, sufficiently described in the resolution of intention. B—The public proceedings, leading up to the contract for the doing of the work and the furnishing of the materials, were abandoned by the board of public works, one (1) year prior to the contract with the plaintiff in this action.
As stated by the appellant, the proceedings in this ease were taken under the “Street Improvement Ordinance” of the city and county of San Francisco, known as No. 2439 (New Series) Bill No. 2685. This ordinance has been before the appellate courts in several cases, including the following:
Bienfield
v.
Van Ness,
176 Cal. 585 [169 Pac. 225],
Federal Construction Co.
v.
Wolfson,
186 Cal. 267 [199 Pac. 512];
Church
v.
Grady,
40 Cal. App. 194 [180 Pac. 548];
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)