Haughawout v. Raymond

HENSHAW, J.

This is an action to foreclose an assessment for the construction of a public sewer in the city of Los Angeles. Plaintiff recovered judgment, and defendants appeal upon the usual technical grounds

[312]

Some of the questions have already been disposed of by this court in

Haughawout

v.

Hubbard,

131 Cal. 675, [63 Pac. 1078]. Upon this appeal the principal attack is made upon the sufficiency of the resolution of intention, which it is declared does not adequately describe the work. Our statute prescribes merely that it shall “describe” the work.. We need not be at pains to follow the elaborate objections which appellants urge. The resolution of intention by specific reference makes the plans, profiles, and specifications a part of itself, and these, taken with the resolution of intention, are certainly sufficient to carry all knowledge and notice to the property-owner which a fair construction of the street law requires. That the resolution of intention may be aided by reference to the plans and specifications is well settled.

(Williams

v.

Bergin, 116

Cal. 57, [47 Pac. 877];

Cohen

v.

Alameda,

124 Cal. 507, [57 Pac. 377];

Grant

v.

Barber,

135 Cal. 188, [67 Pac. 127].) As a typical illustration of the refinement of the technical objections which are invoked against these proceedings] it may be pointed out that it is contended that the plans, profiles, and specifications cannot be used to aid the resolution of intention, because they were not physically “annexed” to it. Reliance is here placed upon