McDonnell v. Gillon

CHIPMAN, C.

Action to foreclose a lien for street-assessment for the construction of certain sewers and other work in the city of Vallejo. Plaintiff had judgment, from which defendant appeals.

The resolution of intention described certain sewers; namely, a sewer 800 feet along the center of Main Street; a sewer 365 feet along Sonoma Street; a sewer 365 feet along a certain alley; a sewer 720 feet “along the center line of Sutter Street, to and extending into the bay of Vallejo to the middle intersection of Maryland and Sutter streets, a distance of 700 feet, including 100 feet cribbing.” These sewers were of different dimensions. Also, “one manhole, to be constructed 4 feet, inside diameter, at the middle intersection of Main and Napa streets ”; two other manholes, similarly described, at the intersection of other streets; also, “one flush-tank, to be constructed at the corner of El Dorado and Main streets.”

Appellant contends that the notice of intention failed to “ describe the work ” as to the manholes, the flush-tank, and the cribbing.

It is well settled that the resolution of intention should so describe the work as to convey an intelligent idea of the improvement and its nature and extent. The resolution is ,the initial step, and by it alone the board acquired jurisdiction to subsequently order the work done.

(Schwiesau

v.

Mahon,

128 Cal. 114; citing

Bolton

v.

Gilleran,

105 Cal. 244.

1

See also

Fay

v.

Reed,

128 Cal. 357, and

Bay Rock Co.

v.

Bell,

133 Cal. 150.)

Respondent contends that

Perine