Legal Opinion

City Street Improvement Co. v. Babcock

California Supreme Court

Decided August 1, 1903No. S.F. No. 2002PublishedCited by 4 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment in favor of the defendant in an action to foreclose a street assessment.

The court finds that the board of supervisors did not on October 22, 1894, or at any other time, duly make or pass a resolution ordering the work done, and that said board on that day did “adopt and pass a resolution” ordering said work done, “but did not prior thereto, and relative to said order, pass a resolution of intention to order said work.” The appellant claims that this finding is inconsistent and contradictory of itself. The evident meaning of the court in…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. City Street Improvement Co. v. BabcockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  2. Thomason v. CarrollCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Mosher v. City of PhoenixArizona Supreme Court · 1923
  2. Pacific Paving Co. v. DigginsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1906
  3. Chase v. TroutCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
  4. City Street Improvement Co. v. LeeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1916

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

Powered by the Exa API