Hendrick v. Crowley

Citations

• 31 Cal. 471

Syllabus

<p>Resolution to grade Street in6San Francisco.—Since the amendment of the Consolidation Act, approved April 25th, 1862, it has not been necessary for the Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco to sign a resolution of the Board of Supervisors declaratory of their intention to improve a public street, in order to render it valid.</p> <p>When Assignee may Sue Assignor.—If A. owns a lot on a street to be improved, and takes the contract, and then assigns to B., who performs the contract, B. may sue A. for the assessment against his lot.</p> <p>In what Right Street Contractor Sues.—In suing a lot owner for a street assessment the contractor is quasi assignee or agent of the city, and is vested with all her rights.</p> <p>Parol Evidence to vary Written Instrument.—The admission of parol evidence to show that the true consideration is other than that expressed, is an exception to the rule that the legal effect of a written instrument cannot he varied or defeated in whole or in part by parol evidence.</p> <p>When Parol Testimony as to Consideration of Written Instrument cannot be Admitted.—The consideration of a written instrument cannot be contradicted or shown to be different by parol testimony, when thereby the legal effect of the instrument to pass the entire interest, according to the purpose therein designated, would be defeated.</p>