Donnelly v. Howard
E. DONNELLY v. THOMAS B. HOWARD
- Area
- civil
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:
Action to enforce a lien for a street assessment in San *292Francisco. The defense is that there was included in the assessment, as well as in the demand, a charge of fourteen cents per front foot, amounting in the aggregate to sixteen dollars and eighty cents, for work done which was not authorized by the resolution of intention or the invitation for sealed proposals. The plaintiff meets this defense by the argument that it was the duty of the defendant to appeal to the Board of Supervisors, and that was his only remedy. We do not think so. It was held in Dyer v. Chase, 52 Cal. 440, that the demand must be for the amount properly chargeable against the lot. The Court there say that “ the plaintiff is not entitled to recover unless he proves a demand for the amount legally due for the work,” and that case was followed by this Court in Schirmer v. Hoyt, 54 Cal. 280.
We see no reason to depart from the rule there laid down.
Judgment and order affirmed.
Cites, in this corpus
- Schirmer v. Hoyt No. 6,506 · 1880-07-01
- Dyer v. Chase No. 5450 · 1877-07-01
Cited by
- Bates v. Hadamson Civ. No. 115. · 1905-12-30
- Ryan v. Altschul No. 15392 · 1894-06-23
- Williams v. Bisagno No. 14,271 · 1893-10-18
- Partridge v. Lucas No. 14565 · 1893-09-11
- Perine v. Forbush No. 14867 · 1893-02-15