Himmelman v. Carpentier

Citations

• 47 Cal. 42

Syllabus

<p>Lien oi? Stbeet Conteactob.—A contractor for improving a street in San Francisco, does not lose his lien on lots fronting on the street, for the sums assessed, to pay for the improvement, from the fact that a judgment enforcing the lien is not rendered within two years from the time the lien attached, provided his action to enforce the lien is commenced within the two years.</p> <p>Evidence in Action to Recoves Stbeet Assessment.—The ninth section of the Act of April 4th, 1870, as to street assessments in San Francisco, did not have the effect of changing the rule of evidence fixed in the fourth section of the Act of March 26th, 1868, which provides that the warrant, assessment and diagram, with the affidavit and demand of non-payment, shall be prima facie evidence of the plaintiff’s right to recover, so as to compel the plaintiff to prove all prior proceedings, but, under said Act of 1870, the assessment or assessments, or original record thereof, are prima facie evidence of the plaintiff’s right to recover.</p> <p>Presumption in Favor op Regularity op Street Assessment.—When the resolution of intention to improve a street in San Francisco, requires the street to be graded to the official grade, and two notices are published inviting sealed proposals, and the record only contains the first notice which requires the street to be graded one foot below the official grade, and is not published five days, and the award is made under the second notice, and judgment was for the plaintiff, the presumption is that the second notice was in accordance with the resolution of intention, and was published for the requisite time.</p> <p>Power to Change Rude op Evidence.—The Legislature has power to change a rule of evidence after the contract to which the rule applies has been made, and after the action in which the rule is to be applied has been commenced.</p>