Gallagher v. Foerst

California Court of Appeal

Gallagher v. Foerst

219 P. 1017, 63 Cal. App. 648, 1923 Cal. App. LEXIS 337

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedSeptember 7, 1923

DocketCiv. No. 4603.

StatusPublished

This text of 219 P. 1017 (Gallagher v. Foerst) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gallagher v. Foerst, 219 P. 1017, 63 Cal. App. 648, 1923 Cal. App. LEXIS 337 (Cal. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

NOURSE, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff foreclosing a lien for street improvements made under the street improvement ordinance of San Francisco approved September 4, 1913. With one exception the questions involved in this appeal are the same as those considered in Gallagher v. Barstow, ante, p. 643 [219 Pac. 1014], and, therefore, the reasons there given are adopted as the reasons for the judgment in this case.

In addition to the points urged in the Barstow case the appellant herein asks for a reversal of the judgment upon the ground that the demand for payment and the return of the warrant were not made within thirty days from the date of the warrant. Appellant states that the warrant was recorded on August 19, 1917, and that demand for payment was made on September 19, 1917, and that the warrant was returned on September 20, 1917. It is conceded that if these facts are true the demand and return were not made within the time prescribed by section 20 of the street improvement ordinance and the lien would therefore be lost.

*649 Respondent argues that the point should not be considered by this court because it is raised on this appeal for the first time and he cites cases from both the supreme and appellate courts to sustain his position. This, however, is no longer the rule of our supreme court. (See City Street Imp. Co. v. Quigley, 191 Cal. - [215 Pac. 390], where the judgment was reversed solely upon a ground first raised on appeal.)

Respondent further points out that the date of recordation of the warrant given by appellant is incorrect, that it was in fact recorded on August 24, 1917, instead of August 19th, and that the demand and return were thus within the period of thirty days. In this he is fully supported by the record, which shows that the warrant with the recording date appearing thereon was received in evidence and that the date of recordation was August 24, 1917. Such being the case, we are at a loss to understand why appellant should raise the point.

Judgment affirmed.

Sturtevant, J., and Langdon, P. J., concurred.

A petition by appellant to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on November 6, 1923.

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

NOURSE, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff foreclosing a lien for street improvements made under the street improvement ordinance of San Francisco approved September 4, 1913. With one exception the questions involved in this appeal are the same as those considered in Gallagher v. Barstow, ante, p. 643 [219 Pac. 1014], and, therefore, the reasons there given are adopted as the reasons for the judgment in this case.

In addition to the points urged in the Barstow case the appellant herein asks for a reversal of the judgment upon the ground that the demand for payment and the return of the warrant were not made within thirty days from the date of the warrant. Appellant states that the warrant was recorded on August 19, 1917, and that demand for payment was made on September 19, 1917, and that the warrant was returned on September 20, 1917. It is conceded that if these facts are true the demand and return were not made within the time prescribed by section 20 of the street improvement ordinance and the lien would therefore be lost.

*649 Respondent argues that the point should not be considered by this court because it is raised on this appeal for the first time and he cites cases from both the supreme and appellate courts to sustain his position. This, however, is no longer the rule of our supreme court. (See City Street Imp. Co. v. Quigley, 191 Cal. - [215 Pac. 390], where the judgment was reversed solely upon a ground first raised on appeal.)

Respondent further points out that the date of recordation of the warrant given by appellant is incorrect, that it was in fact recorded on August 24, 1917, instead of August 19th, and that the demand and return were thus within the period of thirty days. In this he is fully supported by the record, which shows that the warrant with the recording date appearing thereon was received in evidence and that the date of recordation was August 24, 1917. Such being the case, we are at a loss to understand why appellant should raise the point.

Judgment affirmed.

Sturtevant, J., and Langdon, P. J., concurred.

A petition by appellant to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on November 6, 1923.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 P. 1017, 63 Cal. App. 648, 1923 Cal. App. LEXIS 337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gallagher-v-foerst-calctapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack