Bays v. Lapidge

Decided July 1, 1877

California Supreme Court · decided 1877-07-01

The plaintiff, in his complaint, averred that on the 22nd day of December, 1874, the Superintendent of Streets in San Francisco issued an assessment to cover the expense of constructing a brick sewer, with man-hole and cover, in Valencia Street, from Eighteenth to Nineteenth, in San Francisco, and that the assessment, to the amount of one thousand eight hundred and forty and seventy-six one-hundredths dollars, was a lien on a lot owned by defendant on said street; and that…

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1893

1 state decisions

Relies on Dyer v. Barstow · People of San Francisco v. Doe

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1877-07-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1As to the right of plaintiff to sue—this is a part of the prima facie case of plaintiff, because the statute requires that the assessment shall refer to the contract, etc. (Sec. 9, stat. 1871-2, p. 813.) And this Court has held that the contract is thereby made a part of the assessment. (Dyer v. Barstow, 50 Cal. 654.)

By the Court :

¶2“ The contractor or his assigns ” are the only persons authorized to sue. (Act 1871—2, p. 816, s. 13.) The complaint failed to state that the plaintiff occupied either of these relations to the proceedings, and the case is not distinguishable in principle. from that of The People v. Doe, 48 Cal. 560.

¶3Judgment and order denying a new trial reversed, and cause remanded, with directions to the Court below to sustain the demurrer to the complaint.