White

White v. Harris

Good Law
116 Cal. 470·1897 Cal. LEXIS 575·48 P. 382
Supreme Court of CaliforniaApril 7, 1897L. A. No. 138California691 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Britt, J.

Action to enforce an assessment for the expense of constructing a sewer in the city of Los Angeles. A judgment sustaining a demurrer to the complaint was reversed on a former appeal. ( White v. Harris, 103 Cal. 528 .) After that decision trial was had in the court below, and resulted in favor of defendants. The decision of one of several questions now argued by counsel will suffice for the disposition of the case.

A resolution of intention was passed by the city council on June 20, 1889, declaring the purpose of the council to order the construction of a public sewer along specified portions of eight different streets. Thereupon it was the duty of the superintendent of streets under section 3 of the “Act to provide for work upon streets,” etc. (amended in 1889, stats. 1889, p. 158), to post along the line of the contemplated work, and publish in a newspaper, notices stating the fact and date of the passage of the resolution, briefly the work or improvement proposed, and referring to the resolution for further particulars. It is not disputed that substantial compliance with such provisions was essential to the validity of the subsequent proceedings. Notices were posted along 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.