Boyle v. Hitchcock
JOHN BOYLE v. C. M. HITCHCOCK
- 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 -We are of opinion that the objection to the assessment, in this case, that it included an amount, as incidental expenses, for engineering and printing, was waived by a failure to appeal to the board of supervisors. (§ 12 of the act of 1872; Stats. 1871-2, p. 815.)
We are also of the opinion that the resolution of intention sufficiently described the work which the board of supervisors desired to have done.
Judgment and order denying a new trial affirmed.
Cited by
- L. A. Paving Co. v. Los Angeles Foundry Co. L. A. No. 5236. · 1919-12-12
- Ahlman v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co. Civ No. 1916. · 1919-03-22
- Bates v. Hadamson Civ. No. 115. · 1905-12-30
- Perine v. Forbush No. 14867 · 1893-02-15
- McBean v. Redick No. 14680 · 1892-09-13
- Fanning v. Leviston No. 14086 · 1892-02-04
- McVerry v. Boyd No. 12916 · 1891-05-28
- Frick v. Morford No. 13659 · 1891-02-02
- Jennings v. Le Breton No. 11915 · 1889-07-22
- Blair v. Luning No. 11154 · 1888-05-14