Nicolson Pavement Co. v. Painter
California Supreme Court
■ Appeal from the District Court, Fourth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. This was an action to recover a street assessment for laying down the Bicolson pavement in Powell street, in the City and County of San Francisco.
Read the full summary
■ Appeal from the District Court, Fourth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. This was an action to recover a street assessment for laying down the Bicolson pavement in Powell street, in the City and County of San Francisco. It appeared from the record on appeal that the proceedings taken by the Board of Supervisors, preliminary and subsequent to advertising for proposals for bids, which proposals were to put down said Nicolson pavement, were in general pursuance of the provisions of the legislative Acts of 1862 and 1863, (Stats. 1862, p. 391, and 1863, p. 525,) and were not…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Sanderson, J.:
The principal question involved in this case, and the only question which we propose to consider, relates to the power of the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco to cause the streets of the City of San Francisco to be paved with what is known as the Nicolson pavement. We shall consider, first, the power of the Board in relation to the fiiicolson pavement, under the general law upon the subject of street improvements, as passed in 1862, and amended in 1863, (Stats. 1862, p. 391; 1863, p. 525;) and second, the power of the Board in relation…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Zottman v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1862
3Cited by35 opinions
- Verdin v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- Osburn v. StoneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Reams v. CooleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Mayor of Baltimore v. FlackCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1906
- Kilvington v. City of SuperiorWisconsin Supreme Court · 1892
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.