Legal Opinion
Haughawout v. Percival
California Supreme Court
Decided December 6, 1911No. L.A. No. 2768PublishedCited by 4 opinions
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Leslie R. Hewitt, and Chase, Overton & Lyman, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the CourtSloss, J.
The defendant appeals from a judgment foreclosing the lien of a street assessment for sewer work done in the city of Los Angeles. The proceedings were had under the Vrooman Act. (Stats. 1885, p. 147.) Section 3 of that act, as amended in 1891 (Stats. 1891, p. 196), provides that the resolution of intention passed by the city council shall be “posted conspicuously for two days on or near the chamber door of said council.” Section 5 requires that the notice inviting sealed proposals shall be “posted conspicuously for five days on or near the council chamber door of said council,” and that…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Kirkbride v. Lafayette CountySupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Dehail v. MorfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Himmelmann v. CahnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874
- Brooks v. SatterleeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874
- Parker v. GarnhartSupreme Court of Missouri · 1869
3Cited by4 opinions
- Rogers v. City of MobileSupreme Court of Alabama · 1964
- Ferri v. City of Long BeachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- Gordon v. Ransome-Crummey Co.California Court of Appeal · 1918
- Rindge Co. v. City CouncilCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1916