Legal Opinion

Diggins v. Hartshorne

California Supreme Court

Decided July 16, 1895No. 15757PublishedCited by 22 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. Walter H. Levy, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtHarrison, J.

Action to foreclose the lien of a street assessment in the city and county of San Francisco. Under proceedings properly taken therefor by the board of supervisors of the city and county of San Francisco, the superintendent of streets entered into a contract November 28, 1879, with Buckman, the plaintiff’s assignor, for grading Seventh street from the northerly line of Berry street to Channel street; and, after the work had been completed to his satisfaction, issued an assessment therefor. The following is a copy of the *157diagram which is attached to the assessment, so far as the present action…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Directors of Fallbrook Irrigation District v. AbilaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  2. Brady v. PageCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
  3. Whiting v. QuackenbushCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
  4. Foley v. BullardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  5. Chinette v. ConklinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Bianco v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  2. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. California-Arizona Construction Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1920
  3. Hom v. ClarkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
  4. McLaughlin v. KnoblochCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
  5. Lambert v. BatesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API