Legal Opinion
Shipman v. Forbes
California Supreme Court
Decided March 21, 1893No. 15094PublishedCited by 18 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. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHarrison, J.
Action to foreclose a street assessment in San Francisco.
The plaintiff offered in evidence the original assessment, diagram, warrant, and affidavit of demand and non-payment, to which defendants objected upon the ground that the warrant was not dated. The warrant is in the following form: —
“ By virtue hereof, I, C. S. Ruggles, superintendent of public streets, highways, and squares of the city and county of San Francisco and state of California, by virtue of the authority vested in me as said superintendent of public streets, highways, and squares, do authorize and empower James S. Dyer, his…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Grimm v. O'ConnellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Hewes v. ReisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
- Taylor v. DonnerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
3Cited by18 opinions
- Chapman v. JocelynCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- Knight v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
- Chase v. City Treasurer of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Ellis v. WitmerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Bryant v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1940
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.