Legal Opinion
Tibbits Pacific Co. v. Firth
California Court of Appeal
Decided August 8, 1921No. Civ. No. 3454PublishedCited by 3 opinions
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtNourse, J.
Plaintiff sued to foreclose a lien for street improvements under proceedings in accordance with the Vrooman Act (Stats. 1885, p. 147). The assessment which was the basis of the action was made by the board of public works of the city of Los Angeles on September 4, 1915. The trial court, acting under the provisions of section 12¼ of the act (added in 1913, Stats. 1913, p. 409), held that the assessment was unenforceable because an extension of the time for completion of the improvements was made two days after the time given by a previous extension had elapsed. The court found that the work…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Oakland Paving Co. v. Whittell Realty Co.California Supreme Court · 1921
- Manning v. DenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Federal Construction Co. v. NewhouseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
- City Street Improvement Co. v. WatsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
3Cited by3 opinions
- Bass v. City of CasperWyoming Supreme Court · 1922
- Brill v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
- Walker v. Van ValkenburghCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931