Harney

Harney v. Benson

Good Law
113 Cal. 314·1896 Cal. LEXIS 785·45 P. 687
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 16, 1896S. F. No. 87California1,739 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Temple, J.

This is a street assessment case, and the appeal is from the judgment, and was taken within sixty days after its rendition.

*316 The charge is for the construction of a trunk or main sewer on Fourteenth avenue. • In the resolution of intention it was declared that the work was of more than local or ordinary benefit, and the expense was made a charge upon a district which was defined by and in the resolution.

On October 20, 1890, the board had adopted plans for the sewerage of that locality, and had made a map of a system of sewers, of which the sewer in question constituted a part. The scheme contemplated a drain to the Pacific ocean through the Presidio, and it was found, and is admitted, that the board had no power to lay out streets or to' construct sewers through the Presidio reservation.

The resolution of intention was passed November 19, 1890, and the work ordered constitutes but a small part of the system which had been adopted. The portion let had no outlet, and the plan, of which it is a part, cannot be completed. By that method the city cannot furnish an outlet. It was open to the board, however, to adopt other plans, and, at the time of the trial, it was shown that…

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.