¶1during the argument of the appellant’s second point, said that while it might not be necessary to so decide in this case, he was of opinion that if there were persons living on the lots, the demand for the assessment should have been made upon them. The requirements of the statute would not be satisfied in such a case by a demand made by the contractor standing upon one corner of the lot and speaking in a tone of voice which, while it might be said to be audible, would not be audible to a person upon the opposite corner of the lot, or within a dwelling house on the lot.
49 Cal. 150
Himmelmann v. Townsend
Decided July 1, 1874
California Supreme Court · decided 1874-07-01
The plaintiff, as assignee of James dwell, brought this action to recover assessments levied upon lots 7, 8 and 9, in Block No. 5, in the Western Addition to the City of San Francisco, for the construction of a brick sewer with manhole and cover in McAllister street, from Larkin to Polk street. James B. Townsend, Edward Boper, J. W. Beay and George Spanagel were made parties defendant.
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently March 1915
2 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1874-07-01
View the full empirical analysis of this case →