Anderson v. De Urioste

Belcher, C. — This is an action to foreclose the lien of a street assessment upon a lot on Oak Street, in the city of San Francisco. The assessment was for the con[405]struction of a brick sewer with man-holes on Oak Street, from the westerly line of Cole Street to Baker Street, and the complaint alleges that all the proceedings leading up to the assessment were duly had and taken under and in pursuance of an act of the legislature entitled “ An act to provide for work upon streets, lanes, alleys, courts, places, and sidewalks, and for the construction of sewers within municipalities,” approved March 18, 1885, and an act amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto, approved March 14, 1889.

The defendant, by his answer, denied all the averments of the complaint, except that he was the owner of the lot assessed at all the times mentioned in the complaint.

The court below found' all the averments of the complaint to be true, and gave judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant appealed from the judgment, and has brought the case here on a bill of exceptions.

1. It is claimed by the appellant that the resolution of intention to do the work, passed by the board of supervisors, was not published for five successive days, as required by the Consolidation Act, before the final order was made, and hence that the board never acquired jurisdiction to make the order.

The answer is, that the act of March 18, 1885, was a general street law, and was in force in the city and county of San Francisco from the date of its passage. (Thomason v. Ashworth, 73 Cal. 74.) It, therefore, as to all matters provided for, superseded the Consolidation Act and became the governing law of the city. As amended in 1889, it authorized, among other things, steps to be taken for the construction of sewers in streets, and required that the resolution of intention to order the work to be done should be published and posted for two days only. This proceeding was commenced and carried on under the provisions of that act, and it is alleged and found that the resolution of intention was published and posted as required by it. The [406]board acquired jurisdiction, therefore, to make the order that the work be done.