Kahn v. Board of Supervisor
Citations
- 79 Cal. 388
- 21 P. 849
- 1889 Cal. LEXIS 738
Syllabus
<p>San Francisco—Montgomery Avenue Act—Jurisdiction—Insüitícient Petition. —A petition signed by a majority in frontage of the owners of the property described in section 4 of the Montgomery Avenue act of 1872 was necessary to give jurisdiction to the board of works to organize and proceed under the act, and to give the county court jurisdiction under its provisions.</p> <p>Id. — Signatures to Petition — Mandatory Statute—Executors and Administrators — Corporation — Authority of President and Secretary. — The requirement of the act of 1872 that the petition for the improvement of Montgomery Avenue shall be signed by owners of a majority in frontage, whose names are named on the last preceding assessment roll, is mandatory, and no signatures of persons whose names do not there appear can be regarded by the court». Signatures by executors and administrators must be rejected as unauthorized: The signa,ture of the president and secretary of a corporation must also be rejected, in the absence of proof of authority from the board of directors.</p> <p>Id. —Decision of County Court as to Jurisdictional Question of Pact — Jurisdiction of Subject-matter. —The decision of the county court as to its jurisdiction was not conclusive of the jurisdictional question of fact whether the petition for the improvement of Montgomery Avenue was signed by a majority or only by a minority of the owners designated in the statute.</p> <p>Id.—Municipal Bonds — Rights of Bond-holders — Mandamus. — The ■rights of the holders of Montgomery Avenue bonds as to the question of jurisdiction over the proceedings for the improvement of Montgomery Avenue, under the act of 1872, are not different from those of tax-payers. The bond-holder is bound to inquire as to the existence of the facts conferring jurisdiction to proceed under the law. A purchaser of municipal bonds is bound by the law under which they are issued, and the law informs him that the bonds impose no obligation unless issued according to t
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- In the case of allegedly incomplete jury instructions, the appellant’s burden under the plain-error test includes showing that the designated omission constituted an error that was clear or obvious, rather than one subject to reasonable dispute.
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Thornton
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.