Opinion
Department 1. Appeal from superior court, city and county of San Francisco.
Action by one Greenwood and others against one Hassett and others. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
COUNSEL
[6 Cal.Unrep. 431] James F. Tevlin, for appellants Hassett & Grant.
T. Z. Blakeman, for appellant Moran.
F. M. Purcells, for respondents.
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Action to foreclose the lien of a street assessment. The defendants demurred to the complaint upon the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The court overruled the demurrer, and, the defendants having answered, the cause was tried by the court, and judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendants have appealed.
The demurrer to the complaint was properly overruled by the court.
1. It was not necessary to set forth in the complaint the specifications attached to the contract, and which formed a part thereof. Improvement Co. v. Reynolds, 123 Cal. 88, 55 P. 802.
2. The objection that there is no sufficient allegation of a demand upon the lot has been obviated by the stipulation filed herein correcting the transcript as originally printed.
3. The notice of the passage of the resolution of intention was properly posted by the superintendent of streets. The complaint alleges that the clerk of the board of supervisors on the 6th day of December, 1893, posted the resolution of intention, and kept the same so posted for two days, and that on the 8th day of December, 1893, the superintendent of streets caused notices of the passage of said resolution to be conspicuously posted along the line of the work. The provision of section 12, Code Civ. Proc., is not applicable. Section 3 of the street improvement act does not prescribe the time ‘in which’ the posting is to be made, but declares the time at which the superintendent is to make the posting; i. e. after the posting by the clerk. In the present case, the posting for ‘two days’ by the clerk was completed at the close of December 7th. In Society v. Thompson, 32 Cal. 347, where the statute required the publication of a summons for three months, and the first publication was made on the 10th of January, it was held that a publication for three months was completed at the close of April 9th. In Himmelmann v. Cahn, 49 Cal. 285, it was held that the statute requiring the notice of award to be posted for five days was satisfied by including both the first and last [6 Cal.Unrep. 432] day of its posting. See, also, Wilson v. His Creditors, 55 Cal. 476; Dean v. Grimes, 72 Cal. 442, 14 P. 178. 4. The evidence sufficiently showed that the engineer’s certificate had been properly recorded. Perine v. Lewis (Cal.) 60 P. 772. The judgment is affirmed.