Warren & Malley v. Russell

California Supreme Court

Warren & Malley v. Russell

60 P. 1130, 128 Cal. 349, 1900 Cal. LEXIS 602

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedApril 6, 1900

DocketS.F. No. 1257.

StatusPublished

This text of 60 P. 1130 (Warren & Malley v. Russell) 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

Warren & Malley v. Russell, 60 P. 1130, 128 Cal. 349, 1900 Cal. LEXIS 602 (Cal. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

This is an action to foreclose the lien of a street assessment for work done in grading at the comer of Greenwich and Polk streets, in San Francisco. Plaintiff, by the production and introduction of the assessment, warrant, etc., made prima facie proof of his cause and of his right to recover, and rested. The defendant, Bussell, appearing in propria persona, was then sworn and gave testimony somewhat argumentative in its nature, from which it appears that he contended that at the time the grade of the street was established a small portion of the street containing seventy-two and a fraction square feet was held in private ownership. After diligent examination of the record upon appeal, we can find nothing in the nature of evidence sufficient to entitle the contention to a hearing. The same may he said of the second point urged upon this appeal, that the diagram for the work was incorrect and had been altered. after its filing.

The judgment and order appealed from are therefore affirmed.

Hearing in Bank denied.

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

THE COURT.

This is an action to foreclose the lien of a street assessment for work done in grading at the comer of Greenwich and Polk streets, in San Francisco. Plaintiff, by the production and introduction of the assessment, warrant, etc., made prima facie proof of his cause and of his right to recover, and rested. The defendant, Bussell, appearing in propria persona, was then sworn and gave testimony somewhat argumentative in its nature, from which it appears that he contended that at the time the grade of the street was established a small portion of the street containing seventy-two and a fraction square feet was held in private ownership. After diligent examination of the record upon appeal, we can find nothing in the nature of evidence sufficient to entitle the contention to a hearing. The same may he said of the second point urged upon this appeal, that the diagram for the work was incorrect and had been altered. after its filing.

The judgment and order appealed from are therefore affirmed.

Hearing in Bank denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 P. 1130, 128 Cal. 349, 1900 Cal. LEXIS 602, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/warren-malley-v-russell-cal-1900.