Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

46 Cal. 66

Himmelmann v. Haskell

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1873

California Supreme Court · decided 1873-07-01

Action to recover an assessment for improving a street in San Francisco. The defendant demurred to the complaint. The Court below sustained the demurrer, and the plaintiff, declining to amend, final judgment was rendered for the defendant. The plaintiff appealed. The other facts are stated in the opinion.

Relies on Dyer v. North

Decided 1873-07-01

By the Court:

¶1The allegation in the complaint, to which objection is taken under the general demurrer, is as follows: ‘‘That afterwards, to wit: on the 12th day of July, 1865, due notice of said award to said John Henry, and of the particulars thereof, was published, and thereafter continued in the aforesaid newspaper for five successive days thereafter (Sundays excepted).” Upon the authority of Dyer v. North, 44 Cal. 157, we hold this allegation to be sufficient. The question as to the evidence which will be required to sustain the allegation—whether it must be shown that the Board ordered the award to be published—is not involved in this point.

¶2Judgment reversed and order remanded, with directions to overrule the demurrer to the complaint.

/46/cal/66 · .json · Public domain