Buckman
Buckman v. Hatch
Opinion
lead Opinion
Gray, J.
This is an action to foreclose a street assessment. There was no demurrer to the complaint, but defendants answered, and on a trial plaintiff obtained judgment. Defendant Nicol appeals from the judgment, and the record on said appeal consists of the judgment-roll without a bill •of exceptions.
Two points are made by appellant, both directed to the sufficiency of the complaint.
1. It is claimed that it appears from the face of the complaint that the resolution of intention describing the work was insufficient to confer jurisdiction on the board of supervisors, in that it did not show of what materials the cesspools and culverts mentioned therein were to be constructed. The complaint does not contain a copy of the resolution of intention, but the same is set out in the complaint according to its legal effect. We quote from the complaint as follows: “That under and in pursuance of said act approved March 18,1885, and the acts amendatory thereof and supplementary thereof, the following proceedings were duly had and taken, to wit: That on the eighth day of July, 1895, the board of supervisors of said city and county, at a regular meeting thereof, duly made and passed a resolution, to…