Skip to main content
· 2/2/1891

Frick v. Morford

Citations

  • 87 Cal. 576
  • 25 P. 764
  • 1891 Cal. LEXIS 1027

Syllabus

<p>Street Assessment — Validity — New Assessment.—If a street assessment is valid, the superintendent of streets cannot he required to make another assessment.</p> <p>Id. — Mandamus — Pleading — Application. — An application by contractors for street work for a mandamus to compel the superintendent of streets to make a new assessment for the work, which alleges that payment of the previous assessment was refused because of excess of work, must clearly set forth facts showing that the previous assessment was void, else the writ should be refused.</p> <p>Id. — Excess of Street Work—Erroneous Plans and Specifications — Work Outside of Limits. —Street work done according to the plans and specifications in the office of the city surveyor, which call for work outside of the limits authorized by'the resolution of intention, is done without authority as to the work outside of those limits, and the contractors are not entitled to an assessment for the excess.</p> <p>Id. —Location of Lot Assessed. —If the lot assessed wholly fronts upon the work done in excess of authority, it cannot he held liable for any assessment; hut if it fronts in whole or in part upon work authorized by the resolution of intention, the assessment against it will not necessarily be rendered void by the fact that the entire assessment purports to make a charge upon lots not within the limits fixed by the resolution of intention.</p> <p>Id. — Segregation of Excess. — An excess of work done outside of the limits fixed by the resolution of intention will not invalidate an assessment against lots within those limits for work which was authorized by the resolution, if the cost of the work was estimated by the linear foot, so that the cost of the excess can be easily segregated from the cost of the remainder.</p> <p>Id. — Excess of Work within Proper Limits — Appeal to City Council. — An assessment for street work embracing only the frontage covered by the resolution of intention, but including the expense of

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • disbarring lawyer following affirmance of federal convictions for conspiracy, and bank, wire, and mail fraud
  • disbarring lawyer following affirmance of federal convictions for conspiracy, and bank, wire, and mail fraud
  • disbarring attorney convicted of conspiracy, bank fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud
  • disbarred following federal convictions for conspiracy to defraud the United States, and bank, wire and mail fraud
  • disbarred following federal convictions for conspiracy to defraud the United States, and bank, wire and mail fraud

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Harrison

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.