Stotts

Stotts v. Meese

Good Law
1918 Cal. App. LEXIS 46·39 Cal. App. 334·178 P. 727
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 31, 1918Civ. No. 2605.California569 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Sturtevant, J.

The plaintiff brought this action to obtain a decree that Bates, Borland, and Ayer did not hold a lien on the lands of the plaintiff by reason of certain proceedings had for the purpose of improving a street in Oakland. The authorities purported to proceed under the Improvement Act of 1911. Whether they did so proceed is the question involved in this case.

The plaintiff had judgment in the trial court, and Bates, Borland, and Ayer, the contractors, have appealed.

No attack is made except on the assessment. The assessment proceedings show that on July 8, 1914, a clerk in the office of the superintendent of streets delivered into the hands of the superintendent a completed form of assessment, and, believing it to be in substance as he had directed it should be, the superintendent signed it. Later it transpired that said document contained a mistake. It included charges for crossings which were not legally chargeable to the plaintiff’s property. The assessment was for $230, whereas it should have been for $60.91. When the superintendent of streets discovered his mistake one week later, July 15, 1914, he proceeded to correct the mistake by making a new assessment to conform to the…

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.