From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Boyle v. Hitchcock

Supreme Court of California
Nov 24, 1884
66 Cal. 129 (Cal. 1884)

Opinion

         Department Two

         Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial.

         COUNSEL:

         Wright & Wright, for Appellant.

          J. M. Wood, for Respondent.


         OPINION

         THE COURT

         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 [4 P. 1144] of intention sufficiently described the work which the board of supervisors desired to have done.

         Judgment and order denying a new trial affirmed.


Summaries of

Boyle v. Hitchcock

Supreme Court of California
Nov 24, 1884
66 Cal. 129 (Cal. 1884)
Case details for

Boyle v. Hitchcock

Case Details

Full title:JOHN BOYLE, Respondent, v. C. M. HITCHCOCK, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Nov 24, 1884

Citations

66 Cal. 129 (Cal. 1884)
4 P. 1143

Citing Cases

Perine v. Forbush

The remedy for any irregularities complained of here was by appeal, and a failure to appeal was a waiver of…

L. A. Paving Co. v. Los Angeles Foundry Co.

If such claims are improperly paid and included in the assessment the remedy of the property owner is by…