Creighton v. Manson
Before: Rhodes, Sawyer
Synopsis
Street Improvements by a Municipal Government. — The municipal Government of a city, in causing street improvements to be made, acts under the authority conferred upon it by the Legislature, and is subject to all the constitutional limitations and restraints imposed on the Legislature, and has no other or greater power than is and lawfully may be conferred on it by the legislative act.
Assessment not a Tax. — An assessment levied by a municipal Government upon lots adjacent to a street to pay for improvements made on the street, if held to be a tax, cannot be maintained, because it lacks the constitutional requirement of equality and uniformity.
Street Improvements in a City. — The Legislature has not the power to charge the persons who reside on a street in a city with the expenses of an improvement on that street.
Consolidation Act as to Street Improvements.—The Legislature has not, by the Consolidation Act for the government of San Francisco, and the amendments thereto prior to 1862, done anything more than to provide for a lien upon lots adjacent to a street for improvements made on the street, and define the manner in which the same may be enforced. These Acts do not create any personal liability on the part of the owners of such lots for such improvements, nor does the amendment of 1862 create any personal liability for work done or to be done under contracts entered into before its passage.
Assessment on Lot fob 1mproveí ent of Street.—If, under the power to take private property for public uses upon making a just compensation therefor, the Legislature possesses the power to levy an assessment upon lots in a city adjacent to a street to pay for improvements made on the street, the assessment cannot exceed the value of the benefit conferred on the lot or its owner by the improvement, and can be enforced only by proceedings to subject the lot to a sale in discharge of the lien.
Same. — Such assessment cannot be laid on the lot or its owner when the lot has received only an injury by the work on the street for which the assessment is levied.
Statute creating a Lien on a Lot fob Street Assessments.—A statute creating a lien upon a lot in a city to secure the payment of an assessment levied on the lot for improvements in the street adjacent, must be strictly construed, and the proceedings authorized by the statute to create and enforce the lien must be followed precisely as directed, or the whole proceeding will be void.
Resolution to grade Street in San Francisco.—A resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco of intention to grade a street, must be presented to the President of the Board for his approval; and if not so presented, no lien can be enforced on the lots adjacent to the street for assessments' for grading the same.
Opinion — Rhodes
By the Court, Rhodes, J. This action is brought to recover of the defendant the amount of the assessment levied upon a lot in San Francisco, by the Superintendent of Public Streets and Highways, to pay the plaintiff, as the contractor, for his services in grading Union street; also to enforce the assessment as a lien upon the lot.
The defendant was the owner of the lot when the services were performed, and still remains the owner. Previous to the making of the contract for the grading of the street between [619]the Superintendent and the contractor, the lot was appraised, for revenue purposes, at fourteen hundred dollars. The assessment amounts to nineteen hundred and eighty-nine dollars and fifty-four cents. The lot is rendered worthless in consequence of the grading of the street. The Court gave judgment against the defendant for the amount of the assessment, and decreed that the plaintiff should have a lien on said lot to the amount of said judgment.
The construction and improvement of streets are public works, and are intended for the benefit of the public at large; and though the presumption may be indulged in that the larger portion of the benefit inures to the owner of the contiguous property, yet it is but a presumption which in a large proportion of cases is not true, and it remains but a presumption that is liable to be rebutted by proof of the truth. The streets, although public works and designed for public use, are not always constructed at public expense, but more generally they are graded and improved under the direction of the municipal authorities, at the expense of the contiguous lots and lands. The municipal governments, in causing street improvements to be made, act under the authority conferred upon them by the Legislature, the authority being a portion of the sovereignty delegated to them for the purposes of municipal government.
The municipal government, in the exercise of the authority thus conferred,.is subject to all the constitutional restraints and limitations imposed on the Legislature, and has no other or greater power than is and lawfully may be conferred on it by the legislative act'. It can make no order for the improvement of a street, and make no provision for the payment of the expenses, that the Legislature might not do if it should act directly in the matter. When the improvement has been made, an assessment is levied upon the adjacent real estate by the city government, in such manner as the Legislature has directed, to pay for the expenses of the work. Is the right to levy the assessment thus conferred upon the city a portion of the power possessed by the Legislature of
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)