Ryan v. Altschul
Synopsis
Street Assessment—Compliance With Statute—Invalidity.—A street assessment cannot become a lien without a substantial compliance with all the provisions of the statute; and where it appears upon the face of the assessment that the lot of the defendant is charged with a portion of the expense for the work done that the statute declares must be assessed upon other lots, and which cannot, under any circumstances, be imposed upon the lot of the defendant, the assessment is invalid for any purpose.
Id.—Appeal to Supervisors.—Where an assessment includes expenses which, under any circumstances, might have been charged upon the property assessed, and the alleged error is to be determined by matters outside of the assessment itself, the owner must first seek its correction by an appeal to the board of supervisors; but if the assessment is void upon its face, no appeal is necessary.
Id.—Assessment Void in Part.—The assessment is to be regarded as an entirety, and is equally void if it appears upon its face that a portion or all of it is for expenses not legally chargeable upon the property assessed, or that the statute required a portion of the expenses incurred to be assessed upon other property.
The Court. On the eleventh day of June, 1888, the board of supervisors of the city and county of San Francisco made and passed a resolution of intention, declaring their intention to order “redwood curbs, plank sidewalks, and rock gutters to be laid on the southerly side of Post street, commencing at the southwesterly corner of Broderick and Post streets, for a distance of 275 feet, and that the southerly one-half of the roadway opposite to the above-described portion of Post street be regraded and remacadamized.”
[175]In regular course of the procedure thus inaugurated, the board ordered the work to be done February 11, 1889, and March 18, 1889, awarded to plaintiff a contract for the work. Plaintiff duly entered into a contract with the street superintendent, and proceeded to do the work, and on May 8, 1889, the assessment, upon which this suit is brought, was made and assigned to him.
The specifications stated “ that portion of Post street is to be graded by the removal of all loose sand or earth until the old macadam shall have been reached, or to a depth of not less than twelve (12) inches at the center or crown of the street should the original macadam be entirely gone.”
Plaintiff’s bid was for macadamizing (including regrading), per square foot, 5f cents; for sidewalks, per front foot, $1.20; for curbs, per lineal foot, 25 cents.
Which shows that the grading was charged for in the charge for macadamizing.
The assessment was:
5,328 square feet macadam, at $.05f per foot.... $306 36
275 lineal feet redwood curbs, at $.25 per foot.. . 68 75 275 front feet plank sidewalk, at $1.20 per foot. .330 00
Printing.................................... 94 20
Engineering................................... 29 99
$828 31
The diagram shows one lot assessed, to wit, defendant’s lot on the south side of the street, 275 feet frontage.
It is contended that the assessment is void; that it charges defendant with the entire cost of grading and curbing, while the law required that the expense of this work should be assessed upon the lots fronting upon the work on both sides of the street.
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)