Richardson v. Heydenfeldt
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Third Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. Action to collect an assessment levied on lots for improving a street in San Francisco.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Third Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. Action to collect an assessment levied on lots for improving a street in San Francisco. The proceedings for the construction of the sidewalks, as mentioned in the opinion, were taken under the provisions of an Act, approved April 1st, 1872, entitled “An Act repealing Article IV of an Act entitled,” etc, (See Laws 1871-2, p. 804.) The resolution of intention to do the work is given in the opinion. Under the resolution the Superintendent of Streets let the contract. The defendant demurred to the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court:
The description of the work to be performed is “constructing sidewalks on Broadway street from the westerly line of Van Ness Avenue to the easterly line of Octavia *70street, where necessary. ” It is indispensable that the work to be done should be determined by the judgment of the Board, and neither the judgment of the Superintendent nor that of any other person can be substituted. The case, in this respect, is plainly distinguishable from a resolution of intention to order work to be done “except where done.”
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by13 opinions
- Bolton v. GilleranCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Hildreth v. City of LongmontSupreme Court of Colorado · 1909
- Treanor v. HoughtonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Reid v. ClayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Boys' & Girls' Aid Society v. ReisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.