Thomason

Thomason v. Cuneo

Good Law
119 Cal. 25·1897 Cal. LEXIS 837·50 P. 846
Supreme Court of CaliforniaNovember 3, 1897S. F. No. 717California626 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

McFarland, J.

This is an appeal by defendants from a judgment of plaintiff in an action to foreclose the lien of a street assessment, in the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order denying defendants’ motion for a new trial.

The only point made by appellants is, that the hoard of supervisors did not acquire jurisdiction to order the work done, because they failed to declare and describe in the resolution of intention any assessment district as required by section 3 of the street law—it being admitted that such declaration and description are jurisdictional. The contention of appellant is, that the calls of the description in the resolution of intention do not include any district or piece of land whatsoever—that they do not close at the initial point. It is clear that the diagram prepared by the official surveyor and attached to the assessment does show *26 l,he exterior boundaries of the alleged assessment district, and includes a definite piece of land; but it is contended that the surveyor could not properly produce the diagram from the description in the resolution of intention. We do not think, however, that this contention can be maintained.

In construing a description,…

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.