Miles v. McDermott
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Twelfth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. The plaintiffs contracted with the Superintendent of Streets in San Francisco to do work on Minna street. The defendant was the owner of a lot fronting on the street, which was assessed for its proportion of the expense, and this action was brought to recover the assessment. The other facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Sanderson, J.:
Action for a street assessment. .It comes here upon a demurrer to the complaint.
The first point is that the resolution of intention was not published for a period of ten secular days before the resolution directing the work to be done was passed, and that, therefore, the Board of Supervisors had acquired no jurisdiction in the premises at the time the latter resolution was adopted.
The point is not good. The same question arose in Taylor v. Palmer, ante, p. 240. We there held that intervening Sundays are to be counted in the computation of the ten days during which…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Metzenbaum v. MetzenbaumCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
- McCaughey v. SchuetteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Zany v. Rawhide Gold Mining Co.California Court of Appeal · 1911
- Jones v. AlamedaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
- Thomas v. DesmondCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.