People v. Forbes
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Nineteenth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. Action to enforce a lien on a lot in San Francisco for a street assessment. The answer set up as an affirmative defense that the owners of a majority of the frontage of lots on the street improved did not sign the petition to improve the street, and that therefore the Board of Supervisors did not acquire jurisdiction.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Nineteenth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. Action to enforce a lien on a lot in San Francisco for a street assessment. The answer set up as an affirmative defense that the owners of a majority of the frontage of lots on the street improved did not sign the petition to improve the street, and that therefore the Board of Supervisors did not acquire jurisdiction. The court rendered judgment for the plaintiff and the defendant appealed. The other facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court:
First. The answer of the defendant set up certain affirmative defenses to the action, but did not purport to deny any allegation contained in the complaint. The only sup*629posed finding of facts is contained in the decree, where it is said by way of mere recital as follows: “And it further appearing that said complaint was duly verified, the court finds all the facts as stated in said complaint.” -Now in view of the circumstance that the defense did not rest either in whole or in part upon a denial of the allegations of the complaint, but entirely upon the new matter set up in the…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Wilcox v. SwayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
- Dillon Implement Co. v. CleavelandUtah Supreme Court · 1906
- Weightman v. HadleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
- C. I. T. Corporation v. ElliottIdaho Supreme Court · 1945
- Gull River Lumber Co. v. School District No. 39North Dakota Supreme Court · 1890
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.