Rhoda v. Alameda Cty.
California Supreme Court
The complaint averred that the defendants broke down a portion of the inner walls of the plaintiff’s fire-proof brick building at East Oakland, and severed from the same a permanent fixture, to wit, a metallic vault of the value of five thousand dollars. Judgment was asked for that amount. The county was served with process, and judgment was rendered against it by default. The defendant appealed. The other facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
The complaint does not state that the claim alleged to have been presented to the Board of Supervisors was duly verified, etc. The statute lays down the steps to be taken by a claimant against a county precedent to institution of suit. (Political Code, secs. 4072-5.) Being a statutory right, the complaint must allege the steps taken.
“ In actions upon contracts, a general allegation of the performance of conditions precedent is declared sufficient by our statute. But a general allegation of the performance of conditions prescribed by our statute has not been so declared, and is not therefore…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Himmelman v. DanosCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
- Dye v. DyeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
- People v. JacksonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
3Cited by22 opinions
- State v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
- Jackson School Township v. FarlowIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
- Birch v. County of OrangeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
- Brill v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
- Farmers & Merchs.' Bank of L.A. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.