Perine

Perine v. Erzgraber

Good Law
102 Cal. 234·1894 Cal. LEXIS 625·36 P. 585
Supreme Court of CaliforniaApril 19, 1894No. 15344California662 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Searls, J.

Action to recover a sum of money due upon a street assessment, and to foreclose the lien thereof upon a lot of land in the city and county of San Francisco.

Plaintiff had judgment, from which and from an order denying a motion for a new trial defendant appeals.

The proceedings alleged in the complaint were based upon the act of March 18, 1885 (Stats. 1885, p. 147), as amended by the act of March 14, 1889 (Stats. 1889, p. 157).

The resolution of intention passed by the board of supervisors described the work intended to be ordered as follows:

The only evidence offered by defendant to impeach the prima facie case made by plaintiff related to the notice of the resolution of intention which was posted upon the street, and which the evidence showed was in the following words:

The only objection urged to the notice as posted is that it does not sufficiently describe the work or improvement proposed.

The statute (section 2 of act of 1889) requires the notice to “ state the fact of the passage of the resolution, its date, and briefly the work or improvement proposed, and refer to the resolution for further particulars.”

It will be observed that the notice as posted contained a…

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.