Sievers v. City & County of San Francisco
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. W. R. Daingerfield, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.
Plaintiff brought his action to recover of the defendant damages for injury occasioned to his property by the grading of Van Ness avenue at the crossing of Chestnut street. The work as done dammed a well-defined channel through which surface water was wont to flow, and backed the water upon the land of plaintiff.
It was developed upon the trial that a contract had been let, after regular proceedings by the authorities, to grade Van Ness avenue to the “official grade” at a stipulated price per cubic yard of filling. The official grade was seventy-five feet above base. An attempt had been made…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Eachus v. Los Angeles Consolidated Electric Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1894
- Reardon v. City of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- Lloyd v. . the Mayor, C. of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1851
- Conniff v. City of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- Chambers v. SatterleeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Perkins v. BlauthCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- Moynihan v. ToddMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1905
- Strickfaden v. Greencreek Highway DistrictIdaho Supreme Court · 1926
- Carson v. City of GeneseeIdaho Supreme Court · 1903
- Williams v. Los Angeles Ry. Co.California Supreme Court · 1907
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.