Peck

Peck v. Stassforth

Good Law
156 Cal. 201·1909 Cal. LEXIS 308·103 P. 918
Supreme Court of CaliforniaAugust 24, 1909L.A. No. 2300.California636 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Henshaw, J.

This is an action to foreclose the lien of a street assessment. The complaint shows that the city council passed its ordinance of intention for the grading, graveling, curbing, etc., of “Savannah” Street. All subsequent proceedings were directed to these improvements upon Savannah Street between Fourth and Second streets. Defendants are the owners of certain lots fronting on Savannah Street, if such be that street’s true name. If such be not its true name, then the resolution of intention and all subsequent proceedings fail to charge the defendants with notice of the proposed work. The court found that Savannah Street was not the legal name of the street fronting upon defendants’ property, but that the true name was Otto Street, and judgment properly passed for defendants accordingly. The facts upon which this finding is based are without conflict- In 1886 the defendants filed for record a map of their subdivision of a portion of Workman and Heilman’s subdivision of block 73, Hancock’s survey of the city of Los Angeles. That map showed lots from 4 to 11 inclusive upon one side of a street designated as Otto Street. In 1890 the city council of Los Angeles adopted an omnibus…

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.