City Street Improvement Co. v. Pearson
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. George E. Crothers, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
The plaintiff sued to recover upon a promissory note for $612.77. Defendant answered alleging want of consideration for the note. The court found that it was wholly without consideration and gave judgment for the defendant. Plaintiff appeals.
Plaintiff made certain improvements of the street in front of the defendant’s property in San Francisco, under a contract with the board of public works executed in pursuance of the proceedings taken for that purpose. An assessment for the cost thereof was issued to plaintiff. The amount assessed against defendant’s property was $1,225.54, Plaintiff…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Chase v. TroutCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- Taylor v. PalmerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
- Ramish v. HartwellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- McClure v. McClureCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Smith v. EastonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1880
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Smith v. F. W. Woolworth Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1955
- Big Diamond Mills Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1931
- Walters v. CalderonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
- City of Redwood City v. MooreCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
- Louisville Title Insurance v. Surety Title & Guaranty Co.California Court of Appeal · 1976
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.