Boyle v. Hitchcock
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial. Action on an assessment for street improvements in San Francisco, made by order of the supervisors. The superintendent of streets included in the assessment, as incidental expenses, an amount for engineering and printing. No appeal was taken to the board of supervisors. The other facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
The Court
-We are of opinion that the objection to the assessment, in this case, that it included an amount, as incidental expenses, for engineering and printing, was waived by a failure to appeal to the board of supervisors. (§ 12 of the act of 1872; Stats. 1871-2, p. 815.)
We are also of the opinion that the resolution of intention sufficiently described the work which the board of supervisors desired to have done.
Judgment and order denying a new trial affirmed.
2Cited by10 opinions
- Perine v. ForbushCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Jennings v. Le BretonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- McBean v. RedickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Fanning v. LevistonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Ahlman v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co.California Court of Appeal · 1919
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.