Clark v. Porter
GEORGE CLARK v. GEORGE K. PORTERs.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Richard W. Rhodes (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 — Rhodes
By the Court, Rhodes J.:
Action to recover a street assessment. It is alleged in the complaint that defendant Porter and several other persons, who are made defendants, are the owners of the lot charged with the lien of the assessment; and the allegation is not denied by the answer of the defendant Porter. At the hearing, the plaintiff, against the objection of Porter, dismissed the-action as to all of the defendants except Porter, and the Court gave judgment against Porter alone, without any amendment of the complaint. This was error. The thirteenth section of the Act as amended in 1870 (Stats, p. 898) provides that the action shall be brought “ against the owners and all persons having an interest ” in the property sought to be charged. (See San Francisco v. Doe, 48 Cal. 560.) It was not contemplated by the statute that the interest of only one, or of any number less than all, of the joint owners of the property should be subjected to sale for the satisfaction of the lien of the assessment.
Judgment and order reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.
Mr. Justice Niles did not express an opinion.
Cites, in this corpus
- People of San Francisco v. Doe No. 4,110 · 1874-07-01
Cited by
- Worth v. Emerson Civ. No. 167. · 1906-02-24
- Robinson v. Merrill No. 12900 · 1890-12-11
- Dyer v. Heydenfeldt No. 7847 · 1884-11-29
- Driscoll v. Howard · 1883-05-30
- Parker v. Altschul No. 7,184 · 1882-04-04
- Harney v. Appelgate No. 6,580 · 1881-07-01
- Tobelmann v. Roper No. 6791 · 1881-05-20