Treanor

Treanor v. Houghton

Good Law
103 Cal. 53·1894 Cal. LEXIS 719·36 P. 1081
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 12, 1894No. 15320California2,779 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Searls, J.

Thi§ is an action by a street contractor to recover one hundred and thirty-two dollars and eighty cents, assessed upon the lot of defendant for its pro rata of the cost of improving Julian street, in the city of San Jose, under proceedings had by virtue of the act of March 18, 1885, Statutes 1885, page 147.

Plaintiff had judgment, from whi,ch defendant appeals.

The cause comes up on the judgment-roll without a statement or bill of exceptions.

The city of San Jose is, and at all the times hereinafter mentioned was, a municipal corporation.

Julian street, at the several dates hereinafter mentioned, was, and is, an open, located, public street, in said city of San Jose, with duly established width and grade.

On the twelfth day of March, 1888, the mayor and common council of the city of San Jose passed and approved a resolution declaring its intention “ to order that portion of Julian street between First street and the eastern city limits to be improved to the official grade, said improvement to consist of excavating, grading, curbing, guttering, and graveling .the roadway, the gravel to be screened.”

The whole question on this appeal relates to the sufficiency of the complaint…

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.