Legal Opinion

Treanor v. Houghton

California Supreme Court

Decided June 12, 1894No. 15320PublishedCited by 15 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Searls, C.

Thi§ is an action by a street contractor to recover one hundred and thirty-two dollars and eighty cents, assessed upon the lot of defendant for its pro rata of the cost of improving Julian street, in the city of San Jose, under proceedings had by virtue of the act of March 18, 1885, Statutes 1885, page 147.

Plaintiff had judgment, from whi,ch defendant appeals.

The cause comes up on the judgment-roll without a statement or bill of exceptions.

The city of San Jose is, and at all the times hereinafter mentioned was, a municipal corporation.

Julian street, at the several dates hereinafter…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Dougherty v. HitchcockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
  2. Clark v. CraneMichigan Supreme Court · 1858
  3. Marsh v. ChesnutIllinois Supreme Court · 1852
  4. Perine v. ForbushCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  5. Washburn v. LyonsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Spreckels v. GorrillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
  2. May v. FarrellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
  3. Hammond v. City of BurbankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
  4. Hughes v. AlsipCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  5. Webb v. JonesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API