Williams v. Bergin
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. J. C. B. Hdbbard, Judge. The complaint alleged that the superintendent of streets fixed the time in the contract for the commencement of the work “to ■be within fourteen days from the date of said contract.” Further facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHarrison, J.
Action upon a street assessment.
The respondent demurred to the complaint upon the ground of ambiguity and want of facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and, his demurrer having been sustained, judgment of dismissal was entered in his favor. Plaintiffs have appealed.
The complaint alleges that after the completion of the contract an assessment was made and issued on the sixth day of May, 1892, and thereafter on the 14th of May, 1892, the contractor appealed therefrom to the board of supervisors; that the board of supervisors fixed a time and place for hearing said appeal, of which…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- California Improvement Co. v. ReynoldsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Pacific Paving Co. v. BoltonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Rauer v. LoweCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
3Cited by7 opinions
- Troy v. Protestant Episcopal ChurchSupreme Court of Alabama · 1911
- City of Clinton, ex rel. Schuetter v. First Nat. BankDistrict Court, W.D. Oklahoma · 1941
- Gurnsey v. Northern California Power Co.California Court of Appeal · 1908
- L. A. Paving Co. v. Los Angeles Foundry Co.California Supreme Court · 1919
- Locke v. CowanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1917
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.