True v. Fox
BELLA M. TRUE, Respondent, v. E. R. FOX, Appellant, and CHARLES S. STANSBURY, Co-Defendant
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of Los Angeles County
- Trial judge
- Walter Bordwell
- Outcome
- affirmed — the judgment is affirmed.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William H. Beatty (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
THE COURT.
This is an action to cancel a bond issued upon a street assessment and to enjoin the execution of a deed pursuant to a sale ip. the proceedings. Judgment was given for the plaintiff cancelling the bond. The defendant Fox appeals.
The contract for the street improvement in question required the work to be done under specifications which provided that “All loss or damage arising from the nature of the work to be done under this agreement . . . shall be sustained by the contractor.” The presence of this stipulation, in a street-improvement contract, has been held to render the assessment and all subsequent proceedings therein void, in repeated decisions of this court.
(Blochman v. Spreckels, *535 Cal. 665, 67 Pac. 1061];
Goldtree v. Spreckels, 135 Cal. 673, [67 Pac.
1091]; Woollacott v. Meekin, 151 Cal. 701, [91 Pac. 612];
Van Loenen v. Gillespie, 152 Cal. 222, [96 Pac. 87];
Hatch v. Nevills, 152 Cal. 16, [95 Pac. 43];
Stansbury v. Poindexter, 154 Cal. 769, [99 Pac. 182].)
Upon the authority of those decisions and upon the reasons stated therein, the judgment is affirmed.
Lorigan, J., did not participate in the foregoing decision.
Dissent — Beatty
BEATTY, C. J., and SHAW, J.
We dissent from the judgment for the reasons given in the dissenting opinion in Woollacott v. Meekin, 151 Cal. 708, [91 Pac. 612].
Cites, in this corpus
- Stansbury v. Poindexter L.A. No. 1908. · 1908-12-21
- Van Loenen v. Gillespie L.A. No. 1770. · 1907-10-22
- Hatch v. Nevills L. A. No. 1756 · 1907-10-22
- Shade v. Bay Counties Power Co. Sac. No. 1490. · 1907-09-18
- Woollacott v. Meekin L.A. No. 1808. · 1907-08-19
- Goldtree v. Spreckels L.A. No. 989. · 1902-02-28
- Blochman v. Spreckels L.A. No. 931. · 1902-02-28
Cited by
- Stanwood v. Carson L.A. No. 3406. · 1915-03-20
- McQuiddy v. Worswick Street Paving Co. Sac. No. 1697. · 1911-05-26