Bays v. Lapidge
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Third Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. The plaintiff, in his complaint, averred that on the 22nd day of December, 1874, the Superintendent of Streets in San Francisco issued an assessment to cover the expense of constructing a brick sewer, with man-hole and cover, in Valencia Street, from Eighteenth to Nineteenth, in San Francisco, and that the assessment, to the amount of one thousand eight hundred and forty and…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Third Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. The plaintiff, in his complaint, averred that on the 22nd day of December, 1874, the Superintendent of Streets in San Francisco issued an assessment to cover the expense of constructing a brick sewer, with man-hole and cover, in Valencia Street, from Eighteenth to Nineteenth, in San Francisco, and that the assessment, to the amount of one thousand eight hundred and forty and seventy-six one-hundredths dollars, was a lien on a lot owned by defendant on said street; and that the assessment was recorded by…
1Opinion of the Court
As to the right of plaintiff to sue—this is a part of the prima facie case of plaintiff, because the statute requires that the assessment shall refer to the contract, etc. (Sec. 9, stat. 1871-2, p. 813.) And this Court has held that the contract is thereby made a part of the assessment. (Dyer v. Barstow, 50 Cal. 654.)
By the Court :
“ The contractor or his assigns ” are the only persons authorized to sue. (Act 1871—2, p. 816, s. 13.) The complaint failed to state that the plaintiff occupied either of these relations to the proceedings, and the case is not distinguishable in principle. from that…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- People of San Francisco v. DoeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874
3Cited by1 opinion
- Territory of Arizona v. BlevinsArizona Supreme Court · 1893