Gillis v. Cleveland

Citations

• 87 Cal. 214
• 25 P. 351
• 1890 Cal. LEXIS 1121

Syllabus

<p>Street Improvement — Assessment — Lien upon Lots — Foreclosure —• Several Right of Action — Former Recovery — Plea in Bar. — Under the act of March 18, 1885 (Stats. 1885, p. 147), providing for the assessment of abutting lots for the expenses incurred for street improvements, and that the amount assessed upon each lot shall be a lien thereon, each lot or portion of a lot is separately liable for its proportion of the cost of the improvement, and the liability of each is independent of any other, and constitutes a separate demand upon which a separate cause of action may be based, and the foreclosure of a lien upon one lot is not a bar to an action to foreclose a lien upon another lot owned by the same person.</p> <p>Id. — Personal Liability. — The expense of the improvement is a lien upon the property benefited, and not a charge against the owner personally.</p> <p>Id.—Attorney’s Fees — Allowance against Each Lot.—Under section 12 of such act, allowing a certain amount as an attorney’s fee, in addition to the taxable costs, in all cases of recovery under the provisions of the statute, the fee may be allowed as against each lot, although owned by the same person.</p> <p>Id.—Record of Warrant of Assessment. — A warrant of assessment must, in order to create a lien upon the property charged, be recorded in the office of the superintendent of streets before it is delivered to the contractor or his assigns.</p> <p>Id. — Omission of Name of Mayor from Record. — Where the warrant of assessment was properly signed by the superintendent of streets, and contersigned by the mayor, the fact that the name of the mayor and the designation of his office were omitted from the record by the superintendent does not render the recording ineffectual.</p>