From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

White v. Harris

Supreme Court of California
Aug 13, 1894
103 Cal. 528 (Cal. 1894)

Opinion

         Department Two

         Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.

         COUNSEL:

         John T. Jones, for Appellant.

          Allen & Flint, and Wells, Monroe & Lee, for Respondents.


         JUDGES: Fitzgerald, J. McFarland, J., and De Haven, J., concurred.

         OPINION

          FITZGERALD, Judge

         Action to foreclose a lien alleged to have been created by an assessment upon the defendant's lot for the construction of a sewer in front thereof, and along the streets described in the complaint.

         A general demurrer to the complaint was sustained by the court, and upon plaintiff declining to further amend, judgment was given for the defendants, from which judgment plaintiff appeals upon the judgment-roll alone.          The only ground urged here upon which the complaint was held to be insufficient by the court below is, that it failed to allege the formation of a district upon which should [37 P. 503] be chargeable the expense and cost of constructing the sewer, as required by section 27 of the act approved March 18, 1885.

         As this act and the act amendatory thereof, approved March 14, 1889, furnishes, independent of the section referred to, ample authority for the construction of sewers by a city, without the formation of a district to be assessed for that purpose, and also provides for the payment of the expenses and costs thereof by an assessment upon the lots or land fronting upon the streets along which such sewer is constructed, it follows that the court below erred in sustaining the demurrer on this ground.

         The remaining point, raised here for the first time, in support of the demurrer, that the contract under which the sewer was constructed did not fix the date for the commencement of the work as required by section 6 of the said act of 1885 is not well founded.

         The contract set out in the complaint provides as follows: "Work to be commenced within fifteen days." Section 6 referred to provides that the superintendent of streets "shall fix the time for the commencement (referring to the work to be performed under the contract), which shall not be more than fifteen days from the date of the contract." The word "time" as here used was not intended to mean a particular day to be fixed by the superintendent of streets for the commencement of the work, but that the time fixed by him for that purpose should not be more than fifteen days from the date of the contract.

         Let the judgment be reversed, with directions to the court below to overrule the demurrer.


Summaries of

White v. Harris

Supreme Court of California
Aug 13, 1894
103 Cal. 528 (Cal. 1894)
Case details for

White v. Harris

Case Details

Full title:S. WHITE, Appellant, v. CHARLES T. HARRIS et al., Respondents

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Aug 13, 1894

Citations

103 Cal. 528 (Cal. 1894)
37 P. 502

Citing Cases

White v. Harris

A judgment sustaining a demurrer to the complaint was reversed on a former appeal. (White v. Harris , 103…

Rauer v. Lowe

The provision in the contract now under consideration is: "The work to be commenced within fourteen days from…