Kelso v. Cole
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. J. M. Seawell, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
SEARLS, C.
Action upon a street assessment. Defendants had judgment for costs. ■ Plaintiff appeals from the judgment and supports his appeal by a bill of exceptions. Several points' are involved in the appeal, only one of which, in our view of the case, calls for consideration.
On April 25, 1894, after the preliminary steps had been taken therefor, the superintendent of streets in and for the city and county of San Francisco entered into a written contract with J. W. Smith, the assignor of plaintiff (the appellant here), to grade to the official line and grade, to macadamize, to construct…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Brady v. BurkeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Raisch v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Fanning v. SchammelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Brock v. LuningCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Heft v. PayneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Oakland Paving Co. v. Whittell Realty Co.California Supreme Court · 1921
- Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. CostaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Pasadena Park Improvement Co. v. LelandeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- Federal Construction Co. v. NewhouseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
- Union Contracting & Paving Co. v. CampbellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1905
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.