General
ANDREW HIMMELMANN v. ANDREW B. McCREERY
51 Cal. 562·Supreme Court of California·1877·CA
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
[No. 5182.]
ANDREW HIMMELMANN v. ANDREW B. McCREERY.
Stbeet Assessments.—A resolution of intention to improve a street in Sail Francisco, which provides for constructing sidewalks where not already constructed, and for reconstructing them where necessary, does not give the board jurisdiction to perform the work.
Appeal from the District Court, Third Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco.
Action to recover a street assessment for improving Shot-well street from Fourteenth street to Eighteenth street. The following was the resolution of intention adopted by the Board of Supervisors: “That sidewalks be constructed on Shotwell street from Fourteenth to Eighteenth street, where not already constructed; and that the sidewalks thereon be reconstructed where necessary.”
The court rendered judgment for the plaintiff. The. defendant appealed. The other facts are stated in the opinion.
Jarboe & Harrison, for the Appellant, cited People v. Clark, 47 Cal. 456; Randolph v. Gauley, 47 Id. 458; People v. Ladd, 47 Id. 603.
J. C. Bates, for Respondent, cited Himmelmann v. Satterlee, 50 Cal. 68.
[MAJORITY — By the Court:]
By the Court:
The resolution of intention, and the order directing the work to be done, provided: “That sidewalks be constructed on Shotwell street, from Fourteenth to Eighteenth streets, where not already constructed; and that the sidewalks thereon be reconstructed where necessary.”
On the authority of Richardson v. Heydenfeldt, 46 Cal. 68; People v. Ladd, 47 Id. 603, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded, with direction to the court below to enter judgment on the findings in favor of the defendant.