Warren v. Postel

Temple, C. This action is upon a street assessment, and the defendant appeals from the judgment upon the judgment roll.

The defendant claims that he was assessed for too much, his assessment being $220.50, while he thinks he should be held for only $105.67.

He owns a lot at the intersection of Jersey and Noe Streets in San Francisco, thus having frontage on both streets.

September 19, 1887, the board of supervisors declared its intention to do certain work on Jersey Street between Noe and Douglas Streets, being the work for which plaintiff’s assessment was made. It was ordered to be done October 24th, and the contract awarded to plaintiff November 21st of the same year. The assessment for the work was made December 27, 1888. In this assessment the sum of $3,218.60 was assessed to the city and county, that being the sum in excess of one half the last previous assessment for municipal purposes upon certain lots which were liable. As before stated, defendant’s lot was assessed for $220.50. The last previous assessment of his lot for municipal purposes was $565.

October 3,1887, the board declared its intention to do certain work on Noe Street between Alameda and Twenty-sixth Street^ [295]and November 27, 1887, ordered the same to be done, and December 12,1887, awarded the contract to Conway and Company.

The assessment for this work was made July 12, 1888, in which defendant’s lot was assessed for §176.83, which was paid by defendant after this suit was commenced.

Defendant’s position is that his lot can only be held during any tax year for one half its assessed value for all street work done, and it does not matter that the work was ordered at different times on different streets and under different resolutions of intention. Half the assessed value of his lot is §282.50, and he is willing to pay the difference between that sum and his assessment for the Noe Street work, and thinks the assessment in excess of that is void.

Respondent affirms that defendant’s lot is liable to the extent of one half the assessed value for such work, without regard to other work; or, if not, that it is the Noe Street assessment which would be invalid because the notice of intention, the order that the work be done and the contract for the work on Jersey Street, preceded the like steps in the Noe Street procedure, although the Noe Street assessment was first made.