McDonald v. Conniff

California Supreme Court Aug 30, 1893 No. No. 15085Published

Before: Harrison

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court erred in excluding the plaintiff's assessment documents, as the assessment was not void on its face, the diagram complied with statutory requirements, and the assessment documents constituted prima facie evidence of the regularity of the proceedings.

Issues

Whether a street assessment is void on its face if it does not include all lots on a street.
Whether a diagram attached to an assessment must show the specific portion of the street where work was performed.
Whether the legislature may constitutionally designate assessment documents as prima facie evidence of the regularity of prior proceedings.
Whether engineering costs are authorized as incidental expenses in a street assessment.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Inasmuch, therefore, as there are instances in which an assessment is authorized to be made upon only a portion of the lots fronting upon a street on which an improvement has been ordered, it cannot be said that the assessment in question is void”

“The statute makes the assessment, with the other documents offered by the plaintiff, prima facie evidence of the regularity and correctness of the assessment and of the prior proceedings”

Synopsis

Street Assessment—Improvement op Part op Street between Crossings — Validity op Assessment__Under the act of 1889 (Stats. 1889, p. 157), the ci:y council has authority in certain cases to order the improvement of only a portion of a street lying between two main street crossings, and when so ordered, the assessment therefor must be upon only the lots which front on the portions of the work ordered; and an assessment for work done under such order is not void upon its face because only a part of the lots on the street on which the work is to be done are assessed therefor.

Id.—Improper Assessment — Remedy by Appeal.—It is the duty of the superintendent of streets, when part only of a street is ordered improved, to exclude from the assessment lots fronting upon excepted work already done; but the remedy of the party aggrieved is by an appeal to the supervisors for correction of the assessment, and it is not rendered void upon its face for including lots Which ought not to be assessed.

Id. — Diagram of Street Work Auxiliary to Assessment—Contents—Location of Work not Required. —A diagram of street work attached to an assessment therefor is only auxiliary to the assessment, and if it exhibits the street upon which the work was done and also delineates the several lots assessed and shows that each of the lots assessed fronts upon such street and that its location is within the territory liable to be assessed for the work done, it sufficiently complies with the statute, and is not required to show the location of the particular portion of the street in which the work was done.

Id. — Prima Facie Evidence of Regularity of Proceedings—Constitutional Law.—The statute making the assessment and other documents prima facie evidence of the regularity and correctness of the assessment and of the prior proceedings is a constitutional regulation of the rules of evidence, and is not a local or special law “ regulating the practice of courts of justice ” within the inhibition of the state constitution.

Is. — Regulation of Rules of Evidence: —It is competent for the legislature to prescribe rules of evidence for the trial of actions, and statutes which make a document prima facie evidence of the regularity of official proceedings in reference thereto, or which cast the burden of proof in an issue upon either party to the action, are within the constitutional power of the legislature.

Id.—General Law—Statute Regulating Judicial Procedure—Special Legislation. —It is not necessary that a law shall affect all the people of the state in order that it may he general, or that a statute concerning procedure in courts of justice shall be applicable to every action that may be brought in the courts of the state to prevent it from being subject to the constitutional inhibition against special legislation. A statute which affects all the individuals of a class, or all actions of a particular kind, and is in force in all parts of the state, is a general and not a special law.

Harrison, J. Action to foreclose the lien of a street assessment in the city and county of San Francisco.

At the trial the plaintiff offered in evidence the assessment, diagram, warrant, certificate of engineer, with the affidavit of demand and non-payment indorsed upon the warrant, to the introduction of which the defendants objected upon the grounds “ that the same were immaterial, irrelevant, and incompetent, because the assessment is void on its face, as only a part of the lots on Tenth Street, between Folsom and Harrison Streets, [388]were assessed; and, also, that the diagram, did not show on which side of Tenth Street or what particular part of Tenth Street the work for which the assessment was made, or the relative location of the lot of defendant Conniff assessed to the work done, or any part thereof; also, because no foundation had been laid for introducing the diagrams or any of them offered, no prior proceeding having been shown authorizing the assessment, diagram, warrant, or certificate, or any of them; also, because the item in the assessment of $25.83 engineering is unauthorized and illegal.” The court sustained the objection and excluded the evidence. Judgment of nonsuit was thereupon entered, and the defendant has appealed therefrom.

1. Section 2 of the act under which the proceedings were had (Stats. 1889, p. 157) authorizes the city council to order the improvement of “the whole or any portion, either in length or width,” of the streets of the city, and in subdivision 11 of section 7 the council is authorized in its order for any of the work mentioned in the act, “to except therefrom any of said work already done upon the street to the official grade.” Subdivision 8 of section 7 of the act provides that “ where any work .... is done on either or both sides of the center line of any street for one block or less, and further work opposite to the work of the same class already done is ordered to be done to complete the unimproved portion of said street, the assessment to cover the total expense of said work so ordered shall be made-upon the lots or portions of the lots only fronting the portions of the work so ordered.” It thus appears that authority'is given to the city council in certain cases to order the improvement of only a portion of a street lying between two main street crossings, and that such improvement may be confined to a portion of the street upon ope side of its middle line, and also that when only such portion of a street is to be improved, the assessment therefor must be upon only the lots which front the portions of the work ordered.

McDonald v. Conniff

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief