City of Stockton v. Dahl (1884) · DecisionDepot

City of Stockton v. Dahl

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jul 18, 1884 No. No. 8506Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that assessment lists provided by the city are insufficient to prove the procedural prerequisites for a street assessment, such as the ordering of work or publication of notices, and that these facts must be proven by competent evidence.

Issues

Whether the complaint sufficiently alleged the location of the street and the procedural requirements for street assessments.
Whether assessment lists are sufficient evidence to prove the procedural steps required for a valid street assessment.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the assessment lists do not prove, even prima facie, that the city council “has caused a survey and estimates to be prepared of proposed work, to be filed with the city clerk,” or “fixed a time for the hearing upon such proposition,””

“None of these acts separately, nor all of them together, can be said to constitute the “levy” of an assessment. Yet all of them must be averred, and if, as in the case before us, they are denied, they must be proved by competent evidence.”

Synopsis

Street Assessments—Assessment Lists—Evidence—Pleading.— Under the provisions of the statutes, as applied to actions to enforce street assessments, the assessment lists do not prove even prima facia that the city council “has caused a survey and estimate to be prepared of proposed work, to be filed with the city clerk,” or “fixed a time for the hearing upon such proposition,” or ordered work or improvements to be done; nor are the lists evidence of a publication of notice soliciting bids, or of the awarding of a contract, or of any of the acts of officers of the municipality which precede, at least, the doing of the work. None of these acts separately, or all of them together, constitute the levy of an assessment, yet all of them must be averred, and, if they are denied, must be proved by competent evidence.

By the COURT. 1. A general demurrer that the complaint, as amended, does not state facts to constitute a cause of action was overruled by the court below, and, after trial, judgment was ordered and entered for defendant. Respondent now contends that the judgment should be affirmed, because the demurrer ought to have been sustained, for certain reasons:

First. As against a general demurrer, at least, the averment in the complaint, “Market street, in said city, .... was, on or about the first day of January, 1879, and ever since has been an open public street used as such, and dedicated to the public use in said city of Stockton, in the county of San Joaquin, state of California,” is a sufficient averment that the street named is in the city of Stockton.

Second. The complaint alleges that the resolution of intention was published as required by the city council.

[338]Third. If the notice soliciting bids was actually published, it is unimportant that a portion of a resolution of the council directed the street committee to solicit bids.

The charter does not require, when an order is made that work be done, the council shall in terms direct the clerk to advertise for bids, or that the contents of the notice to be published by the clerk shall be set forth in the resolution ordering work, unless, perhaps, when the work is the building, etc., of sidewalks, or the estimated cost does not exceed $100: Stats. 1871-72, p. 606, sec. 26. Section 27 of the charter provides that “a notice signed by the clerk” shall be published. The complaint avers that a notice, signed by the clerk, containing the requirements of the statute, was published for a time stated, being the time required by the law.

Fourth. A resolution of .the council appointed the street-committee to award the contract, etc. The statute (page 606, sec. 27) empowers the council, “or its committee therefor appointed, .... to open and declare said bids and award the contract.” It requires this to be done “in open meeting” of the council or committee, as the case may be. The complaint alleges it was so done.

Fifth. The statute (page 608, sec. 29) gives an appeal to the council by any person claiming to be aggrieved by the assessment, and authorizes the council to “correct, alter, or modify” an assessment. We know of no constitutional inhibition upon such legislation.

City of Stockton v. Dahl

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief