City & County San Francisco v. Certain Real Estate
Citations
- 42 Cal. 513
Syllabus
<p>Judgment Unopposed not Necessarily a Consent Judgment. — A motion to dismiss an appeal on the ground that the judgment appealed from was entered by consent, cannot be sustained where the record, though it shows that no opposition was made, fails to show that appellant or his attorney was present in Court at its entry.</p> <p>Presumption in Favor of Eight of Appeal.—Doubtful claims affecting the right of appeal should be liberally construed in favor of the right.</p> <p>“ Second Street Cut ” in San Francisco—Defects in Proceedings Cured.—The amendatory Act of February 1st, 1870, ratifying and confirming all the orders and resolutions of the Board of Supervisors in reference to the “ Second Street Cut ” in San Francisco, and the proceedings of the Superintendent of Streets, and the contract, and all the acts and doings of the contractor under it (Stats. 1869-70, p. 41), cured an omission of the Supervisors to publish notice as required by the original Act authorizing the improvement. (Stats. 1867-8, p. 595.)</p> <p>Street Improvements—Power of Legislature to Cure Defects in Proceedings.—In reference to proceedings of statutory creation for the improvement of certain streets in San Francisco; held, that it was competent for the Legislature, by subsequent enactment, to cure any defects or ' omissions in the proceedings of the Board of Supervisors or Superintendent of Streets.</p> <p>Final Disposition op Objections to Oommissioners’ Report on “ Second Street Out.”—The Act of February 1st, 1870, in reference to the “ Second Street Out” in San Francisco (Stats. 1869-70, p. 41), in providing that the judgment of the County Court, either confirming or setting aside the report of the Commissioners, should be “final and conclusive,” obviously contemplated that all objections to the report, founded upon the errors, misconduct, irregularities, or omissions of the Commissioners, should be heard and determined by the County Court, and that it should not thereafter be open to at
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- giving preclusive effect to a prior judgment “however irregular or erroneous”
- giving preclusive effect to a prior judgment \however irregular or erroneous\
- giving preclusive effect to a prior judgment “however irregular or erroneous”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Crockett
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.