Verso

Pacific Paving Co. v. Verso

Good Law
12 Cal. App. 362·1910 Cal. App. LEXIS 354·107 P. 590
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 3, 1910Civ. No. 242.California2,423 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Cooper, J.

This action was brought to recover separate assessments against the several defendants, fifteen in number, on a street assessment for paving and curbing “the intersection of San Jose avenue, 28th and Guerrero streets,” in the city and county of San Francisco.

The court made findings, upon which judgment was ordered and entered in favor of each of the defendants. The plaintiff made a motion for a new trial, which was denied, and this appeal is from the judgment and order.

The contract was entered into and all the preliminary proceedings taken under the act of 1885 (Stats. 1885, p. 147), commonly called the Vrooman act, but the work was not completed, nor was the assessment issued, until the charter of San Francisco became effective. The act provides (section 3) that “Before ordering any work done or improvement made which is authorized by section 2 of this act, the city council shall pass a resolution of intention so to do and describing the work. ...”

The resolution of intention in due form and properly adopted is the foundation and basis upon which all further proceedings must stand. It is the essential thing which clothes the city authorities with jurisdiction to proceed with…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.