Haughawout v. Raymond
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. S. O. Houghton, Leslie R. Hewitt, and Lee, Scott, Bailey & Chase, for Appellants.
1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.
This is an action to foreclose an assessment for the construction of a public sewer in the city of Los Angeles. Plaintiff recovered judgment, and defendants appeal upon the usual technical grounds
Some of the questions have already been disposed of by this court in Haughawout v. Hubbard, 131 Cal. 675, [63 Pac. 1078]. Upon this appeal the principal attack is made upon the sufficiency of the resolution of intention, which it is declared does not adequately describe the work. Our statute prescribes merely that it shall “describe” the work.. We need not be at pains to follow the elaborate…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Duncan v. RamishCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Williams v. BerginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Carter v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- German Savings & Loan Society v. RamishCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Cohen v. City of AlamedaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Bohman v. BergCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
- City of Bartlesville v. HolmSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1914
- Stanwood v. CarsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Town of Mill Valley v. Massachusetts Bonding & InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
- McCaleb v. DreyfusCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.