Donnelly v. Howard

California Supreme Court

Donnelly v. Howard

60 Cal. 291, 1882 Cal. LEXIS 448

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 27, 1882

DocketNo. 7,159

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 60 Cal. 291 (Donnelly v. Howard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Donnelly v. Howard, 60 Cal. 291, 1882 Cal. LEXIS 448 (Cal. 1882).

Pincite

Opinion

The Court:

Action to enforce a lien for a street assessment in San [292]*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.

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

The Court:

Action to enforce a lien for a street assessment in San [292]*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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 Cal. 291, 1882 Cal. LEXIS 448, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donnelly-v-howard-cal-1882.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack