Eustace v. Jahns
Citations
- 38 Cal. 3
Syllabus
<p>Repairs to Streets or Highways.—The owner of land, bordering upon public streets or highways, is not bound to lceep them in repair.</p> <p>Repairs to Streets and other Public Thoroughfares in San Francisco.— The law does not impose upon the owner of a lot fronting upon a public street m San Francisco, the duty of repairing defects in the portions of the street upon which Ms lot abuts.</p> <p>Streets and other Thoroughfares in San Francisco.—The legislative charter of the City and Couniy of San Francisco confers the entire control, supervision and management of all the public streets, thoroughfares, etc., within its corporate limits, upon the Board of Supervisors and Superintendent of Public Streets and Highways.</p> <p>Consolidation Act—Construction of the 24th Section as amended in 1863.— The design, and only effect of tMs section, is, to exempt the city and county from the liability for injuries wMeh would otherwise attach to it, by reason of the exclusive control of the streets and public highways, conferred upon it by other sections of the statute, and to transfer such responsibility to individual officers, agents and employes of the corporation.</p> <p>Statute of April 26, 1862.—The application of the Act “requiring compensation for causing death by wrongful act, neglect or default,” is not to be extended to any matters not embraced in the strict letter of the statute.</p> <p>Action against Administrator.—No action can be maintained against an administrator, as stich, that is founded upon malfeasance or misfeasance, or for a tort.</p> <p>Idem.—No action can. be maintained to charge the estate of a deceased person upon a money demand, unless the claim has been previously presented to the administrator for Ms allowance.</p>
Judges: Sprague
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
19 cases in this archive cite this case.
- City of Rochester v. . CampbellNew York Court of Appeals· 1890-12-02· cited 195×
- Johnston v. LongCalifornia Supreme Court· 1947-05-06· cited 88×
- Schaefer v. LenahanCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1944-03-18· cited 34×
- Selby v. City of PortlandOregon Supreme Court· 1886-12-06· cited 26×
- Briggs v. BreenCalifornia Supreme Court· 1899-03-06· cited 24×
- Calhoun v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court· 1955-12-30· cited 19×
- Nunez v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1983-05-31· cited 14×
- Williams v. FosterCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1989-12-08· cited 14×
- Corcoran v. City of San MateoCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1953-12-31· cited 13×
- National Automobile & Casualty Insurance v. AingeCalifornia Supreme Court· 1950-02-28· cited 13×
- Melone v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court· 1885-08-12· cited 13×
- Rufo v. N. B. C. National Broadcasting Co.California Court of Appeal· 1959-01-05· cited 12×
- Stockmen's State Bank v. Merchants' & Stockgrowers' BankArizona Supreme Court· 1921-05-04· cited 10×
- Daly v. MathewsCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1942-02-06· cited 9×
- Delaware, L. & W. R. v. MaddenSecond Circuit· 1917-04-10· cited 6×
- Law v. KingsleyNew York Supreme Court· 1894-12-07· cited 4×
- Olson v. AltemusSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1958-11-19· cited 2×
- Holdridge v. DrewesCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1968-01-05· cited 1×
- Lopez v. City of L.A.California Court of Appeal· 2020-10-01
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
Sourced 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.