TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Fanning v. Schammel

E. FANNING v. H. SCHAMMEL

Fanning v. Schammel, 9 P. 427 (Cal. 1886)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 28, 1886
Docket
No. 9253
Judges
McKee
Citations
9 P. 42768 Cal. 4281886 Cal. LEXIS 458
Headnotes
Street Work — Grading Montgomery Avenue — Completion op Work —Extension op Time — Expiration of Contract. — The- action was brought to foreclose a street assessment lien for grading Montgomery Avenue, in the city and county of San Francisco. The contract under which the work was done required its completion within sixty days. The work was not completed within the time, and subsequently the board of supervisors of the city and county extended the time for its completion. Held, that upon the failure to complete the work within the time required the contract expired, and the board of supervisors had no jurisdiction to revive or validate it. Id. —Act of Mabch 19, 1878, Unconstitutional. —The act of March 19, 1878, so far as it attempts to revive such a contract, and validate an assessment for street work done under it, is unconstitutional and void.
Summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — McKee

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

McKee, J.

— Action to foreclose a street assessment lien for street work alleged to have been done under a contract for grading Montgomery Avenue in the city and county of San Francisco.

The contract required that the work should be completed within sixty days. The work was not completed within the time; and under the law the contract expired. Subsequently, however, the board of supervisors of said city and county extended the time; but it had no jurisdiction to revive and validate a dead contract. The order of extension was, therefore, unauthorized and void. (Beveridge v. Livingstone, 54 Cal. 54 ; Owens v. Heydenfeldt, 6 W. O. R. 149; Torrens v. Townsend, 6 W. C. R. 149.)

*430 But nearly a year after the order of extension by the board of supervisors, the legislature, on the 19th of March, 1878, by an act entitled “An act to ratify and confirm certain orders and resolutions of the board of supervisors of the city and county of San Francisco, relative to street work on Montgomery Avenue,” etc., made valid, ratified, and confirmed “ all orders and resolutions heretofore from time to time passed by said board of supervisors, .... in relation to street work done, in whole or in part, on Montgomery Avenue, in said city and county, and all contracts and assessments for such street work, .... and all other proceedings under and in accordance with the provisions of such orders and resolutions” (Stats. 1877-78, p. 341); and it is contended that all the proceedings in connection with the assessment for said street work were thereby validated.

But so far as the statute attempts to vitalize a dead contract and validate a void assessment for street work, it is unconstitutional and void. (People v. Lynch, 51 Cal. 15 ; People v. McCune, 57 Cal. 153 ; Brady v. King, 53 Cal. 44 .)

Judgment affirmed.

Boss, J., and McKinstey, J., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 15 cases

View all citing references →
1886–1887: 11888–1889: 11890–1891: 21892–1893: 11896–1897: 21898–1899: 11914–1915: 11916–1917: 11920–1921: 21922–1923: 21926–1927: 118862026peak 1890 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Oakland Paving Co. v. Whittell Realty Co.195 P. 1058 (Cal. 1921)
  2. Owings v. City of Olympia152 P. 1019 (Wash. 1915)
  3. City Street Improvement Co. v. Watson195 P. 967 (Cal. Ct. App. 1920)
  4. Flinn v. Shafter Realty Co.212 P. 194 (Cal. 1923)
  5. Connolly v. City & County of San Francisco33 P. 1109 (Cal. 1893)
  6. Gallagher v. J. W. Wright & Sons Investment Co.261 P. 1041 (Cal. Ct. App. 1927)

Most recent

  1. Gallagher v. J. W. Wright & Sons Investment Co.261 P. 1041 (Cal. Ct. App. 1927)
  2. Flinn v. Shafter Realty Co.212 P. 194 (Cal. 1923)
  3. Gast Realty & Investment Co. v. Schneider246 S.W. 177 (Mo. 1922)
  4. Oakland Paving Co. v. Whittell Realty Co.195 P. 1058 (Cal. 1921)
  5. City Street Improvement Co. v. Watson195 P. 967 (Cal. Ct. App. 1920)
  6. Benshoof v. City of Iowa Falls175 Iowa 30 (1916)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
People v. Lynch, 51 Cal. 15 (1875) 85
Beveridge v. Livingstone, 54 Cal. 54 (1879) 17
Brady v. King, 53 Cal. 44 (1878) 6
People v. McCune, 57 Cal. 153 (1880) 2

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list