Legal Opinion

Union Paving & Contracting Co. v. McGovern

California Supreme Court

Decided February 26, 1900No. S.F. No. 1303PublishedCited by 5 opinions

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco and from an order denying a new trial. J. M. Seawell, Judge. •The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtHarrison, J.

Action upon a street assessment.

1. Within ten days after the publication and posting of the notice of the improvement, the owners of a majority of the frontage upon the work delivered to the clerk of the board of supervisors written objections to the same. No further steps were taken until the expiration of six months, when the board of supervisors ordered the work to be done without again passing a resolution of intention therefor. Under the rule declared in City Street Imp. Co. v. Babcock, 123 Cal. 305, the proceedings in relation to doing the work were without authority, and no lien was…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Heft v. PayneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  2. People v. BurgleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  3. Callender v. PattersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Mosher v. City of PhoenixArizona Supreme Court · 1923
  2. Allen v. HanceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
  3. The Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. JurgensCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  4. Cummings v. KearneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  5. Pacific Paving Co. v. Sullivan Estate Co.California Supreme Court · 1902

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API