Whiting v. Quackenbush

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1880 No. No. 6,313Published

Before: Department, McKee

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the street assessment was valid because the caption sufficiently established the property's location, the diagram provided an adequate description of the lot, and the front-foot assessment system is constitutional.

Issues

Whether the assessment sufficiently identified the property's location within the City of San Francisco.
Whether the assessment and diagram provided a sufficient description of the property.
Whether the front-foot assessment system is unconstitutional for lack of equality and uniformity.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Laying the venue in the caption of the assessment is, therefore, sufficient to show that the property sought to be charged is situated within the jurisdiction of the Superintendent of Streets of the City and County of San Francisco.”

“The description of the lot is therefore sufficient.”

Synopsis

Street Assessments—Venue.—Laying the venue in the caption of a street assessment, by inserting the words “ State of California, City and County of San Francisco, ss.,” is sufficient to show that the property sought to be charged is within the jurisdiction of the Superintendent of Streets of that city and county.

Id.—Description—Diagram—Points oe Compass.—The description in an assessment for a street improvement, may be made by a diagram; and on such diagram, the point of a scroll is as competent as the barb of an arrow to denote north. Accordingly, where the diagram in such an assessment exhibited the streets on which the work had been done, the lot itself as designated by its number, the number of its feet front on the street, and the depths of its side lines, and also a scroll designating the direction of the street: Meld, that the description was sufficient.

Id.—Tax—Definition—Constitutional Law.—An assessment for improving a street in a city is a tax, and therefore must be levied with equality and uniformity. But if it be so levied under a system which apportions it with reference-to the number of feet fronting on the improvement, or by any other standard which will approximate equality and uniformity, it is not void.

Id.—Id. — Judicial Notice.—The courts will take judicial notice of the streets of San Francisco as designated on the official plan or map of the city.

Department No. 1, McKee, J.: This is an appeal from a judgment of foreclosure of the lien of a street assessment upon a lot of land in the City of San Francisco.

It is contended that the judgment is erroneous, because the assessment does not show that the property or the streets represented upon it are within the City of San Francisco; because it does not show a sufficient description of the property; and because the law, under which the assessment has been made, is not equal and uniform, and therefore is unconstitutional and void.

First.—The Superintendent of Public Streets, Highways and Squares of the City and County of San Francisco, has certified the assessment from the book of the record of assessments in his office, and the caption at the head of the assessment shows that it was made in the City and County of San Francisco.

A venue in the margin of a pleading is held to be sufficient. (Hicks v. Walker, 2 Greene’s Iowa Reps.; Cocke v. Kendall, 1 Hempstead, 393.) And where there are several facts, the venue stated as to the first will apply to all the matter which follows it. (Skinner v. Gunton, 1 Saund. 229.) Laying the venue in the caption of the assessment is, therefore, sufficient to show that the property sought to be charged is situated within the jurisdiction of the Superintendent of Streets of the City and County of San Francisco.

Secondly.—An assessment for a street improvement must contain a description of the property upon which a lien is claimed. In Himmelman v. Cahn, 49 Cal. 296, no courses were [310]represented on the diagram of the assessment. In Himmelman v. Bateman, 50 Cal. 11, the same defect existed, and the figure which indicated the depth of the side lines of the lot on the original diagram were omitted from the diagram as recorded; and in San Francisco v. Quackenbush, 53 Cal. 52, and Norton v. Courtney, Id. 691, there was nothing on the diagram to distinguish the meridian; and the description in each of those cases was held to be insufficient.

But in this case the assessment and diagram exhibit the streets on which the work has been done, the lot itself as designated by its number, the number of its feet front on the street, and the depth of its side lines, -and also a scroll representing the direction of the streets. The point of a scroll is as competent as the barb of an arrow to denote north on a map or a diagram. Indeed, any peculiarity of shape or color is sufficient for that purpose, so that the Court is enabled to read from the diagram that Tyler Street lies northerly, and runs parallel with McAllister Street, and that both of them run easterly and westerly; and that Polk Street runs at right angles with the latter streets. These are streets of the city as designated on the official plan or map of the city, of which the Court is bound to take judicial notice. (Stat. 1858, pp. 52-56.) The description of the lot is therefore sufficient.

Whiting v. Quackenbush

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief