King

King v. Lamb

Good Law
117 Cal. 401·1897 Cal. LEXIS 672·49 P. 561
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 25, 1897Sac. No. 223California1,724 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Haynes, J.

This is an action brought by the plaintiff to foreclose a lien for street work upon the north fifty-six feet of lot No. 4, in the block bounded by T and U and Second and Third streets, in the city of Sacramento, the property of the defendant. The plaintiff had findings and judgment for the sum of seventy dollars and seventy-four cents, with interest, and an attorney’s fee of fifteen dollars. The defendant appeals from the judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

The main ground upon which defendant relies for a reversal of the judgment and order is that the board of trustees never acquired jurisdiction to order the improvement.

Three points are made in support of this contention:

1. “That the board of trustees did not designate the newspaper in which the resolution of intention should be published.” That part of the resolution material to be noticed is as follows: “The daily Bee is hereby designated as the newspaper published and circulated in the city of Sacramento in which notice of the adoption of this resolution of intention shall be published for a period of two days, and the notice thereof for six days, as often as said newspaper shall be issued…

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.