Williams v. Bergin
Before: Harrison
Synopsis
Street Assessment—Jurisdiction oe Street Superintendent—Change of Judgment.—The act of the superintendent of streets in making a street assessment is in the nature of a judgment by a tribunal of special jurisdiction, whose power is exhausted after its judgment has once been exercised, and, in the absence of statutory authority for its revision, the judgment cannot be changed.
Id.—Increase of Amount of Lien—Notice to Owner.—If the lien charged upon the land of the owner for a specified sum is to be increased it is essential that the owner shall have notice thereof, and an opportunity to be heard thereon.
Id.—Appeal by Contractor to Supervisors—Notice—Jurisdiction.— Upon an appeal by the contractor to the supervisors for an increase of the amount of the lien the notice to the owner is in the nature of process by which the board of supervisors may acquire jurisdiction to act upon the appeal and change the assessment, and the means provided by the law to warn the owner of an intended increase of the lien upon his property must be followed in order to effect an increase thereof.
Id.—Mode the Measure of Power — Revision of Assessment.—The mode which the statute prescribes for a revision of the assessment is the measure of the power, and, unless that mode is followed, any attempted revision will be nugatory.
Id.—Notice not the Equivalent of Knowledge.—Notice, when required by statute, is not the equivalent of knowledge, and the supervisors gain jurisdiction to act upon the appeal only by giving the notice that the statute requires, and in the manner that is required, and not by the fact that the parties interested may have knowledge of their intended action.
Id.—Notice must be Authentic.—The term “notice” of itself imports that the information given thereby comes from an authentic source, and is directed to some one who is to act, or refrain from acting in consequence of the information contained in the notice.
Id.—Insufficient Notice of Appeal to Supervisors — Notice to Appellants Only—Void Increase of Assessment.—Where, upon an appeal by a contractor from a street assessment, the board of supervisors ordered the publication of a resolution requiring all appellants to appear and be heard'iu respect of their appeals, without specifying the owners of the property, or the defendants against whom the appeal is taken, the supervisors acquire no jurisdiction to act upon the appeal, and their increase of the assessment upon such appeal is void.
Id.—Effect of Appeal—Suspension of Collection—Suit by Contract- or.—The effect of an appeal from an assessment by the street superintendent is to suspend all action for the collection of the assessment until after its determination, and, until the confirmation of the assessment by the board of supervisors, or the making of a new one under its direction, the contractor cannot sue upon an assessment made by the supervisors without authority.
Harrison, J. Action upon a street assessment. After the work had been completed to the satisfaction of the superintendent of streets, that officer made an assess[169]ment therefor May 6, 1892, by which the land described in the complaint was assessed in the sum of six hundred and fourteen dollars and thirty cents. Within thirty days thereafter, viz., May 14th, the contractors to whom the assessment was issued, deeming that they were entitled to receive a larger sum, appealed therefrom, by filing in the office of the clerk of the board of supervisors a notice of their appeal, in which their objections were stated in writing; and the board of supervisors fixed Monday evening, June 6th, as the time for hearing the appeal, at which time they passed a resolution setting aside the assessment, and directing the superintendent of streets to make and issue a new assessment in accordance with the claim of the contractors. The present action is brought upon the assessment made under this direction of the board of supervisors.
Section 11 of the Street Improvement Act (Stats. 1885, p. 156), after providing for an appeal from any act of the superintendent, declares: “ Notice of the time and place of the hearing, briefly referring to the work contracted to be done, or other subject of appeal, and to the acts, determinations, or proceedings objected to or complained of, shall be published for five days.” In the present case the board of supervisors fixed the time and place for hearing the appeal by the following resolution:
“Resolved, That Monday evening, June 6, 1892, at 8 o’clock p. m., be fixed as the time for hearing said appeal by this board, in their chamber, at the New City Hall, at which time and place all appellants are required to appear, when they will be heard in relation to said appeals.
“And the clerk is hereby directed to publish this resolution in the San Francisco Daily Report newspaper, for five days, as and for the notice required by law.”
This resolution was published as therein directed, and was the only notice of the hearing of the appeal authorized or given by the board of supervisors.
The act of the superintendent in making the assessment is in the nature of a judgment by a tribunal of [170]
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)