Boyle v. Hitchcock
4 P. 1143, 66 Cal. 129, 1884 Cal. LEXIS 710
Opinion
-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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Boyle v. Hitchcock, 4 P. 1143, 66 Cal. 129, 1884 Cal. LEXIS 710 (Cal. 1884).
4 P. 1143 (Boyle v. Hitchcock) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
L. A. Paving Co. v. Los Angeles Foundry Co.
186 P. 593 (California Supreme Court, 1919)
Ahlman v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co.
181 P. 238 (California Court of Appeal, 1919)
Bates v. Hadamson
84 P. 51 (California Court of Appeal, 1905)
Perine v. Forbush
32 P. 226 (California Supreme Court, 1893)
McBean v. Redick
31 P. 7 (California Supreme Court, 1892)
Fanning v. Leviston
28 P. 943 (California Supreme Court, 1892)
McVerry v. Boyd
26 P. 885 (California Supreme Court, 1891)
Frick v. Morford
25 P. 764 (California Supreme Court, 1891)
Jennings v. Le Breton
21 P. 1127 (California Supreme Court, 1889)
Blair v. Luning
18 P. 153 (California Supreme Court, 1888)