Burk v. Altschul

6 P. 393, 66 Cal. 533, 1885 Cal. LEXIS 493
California Supreme Court·Decided March 20, 1885·No. No. 7,524·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

The Court

This is a street assessment case. The first point presented, that an item of forty dollars for printing was included in the assessment, has been repeatedly passed upon by this court, adversely to the appellant.

The second point is, that the board of supervisors, when a street was ordered to be macadamized, had not power, under the act of April 1, 1872 (Stats. 1871-2, p. 804), to order the construction of rock gutter-ways. By section 3 of the act, the board was authorized to order the street to be macadamized, “ and to order any other work to be done which shall be necessary to make and complete the whole or any portion of said streets,” etc. We think it was competent for the board to determine that rock gutter-wavs were necessary to complete the macadamizing of the street. The only substantial difference between the two methods seems to be, that in constructing the gutter-ways, the rock was to be hand-laid instead of. being spread, as in macadamizing. Doubtless the board deemed this process necessary, in order to protect the work from washing.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Burk v. Altschul, 6 P. 393, 66 Cal. 533, 1885 Cal. LEXIS 493 (Cal. 1885).

6 P. 393 (Burk v. Altschul) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Nelson v. City of Willmar
276 N.W. 234 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1937)
Mardis v. McCarthy
121 P. 389 (California Supreme Court, 1912)
Partridge v. Lucas
33 P. 1082 (California Supreme Court, 1893)