Case ID: cal_59/html/0608-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Court:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 7,218.
    Department One.]
    THE CITY OF STOCKTON v. S. DUNHAM.
    Street Assessment—Stockton.—In an action to enforce a lien for a street assessment on lots in Stockton, alleged in the complaint to have been the property of the defendant at the date of the assessment, it appeared from the assessment list offered in evidence that the lots were assessed to “Shubal Dunham and unknown.”
    
      Held: The assessment was void, and the ruling of the Court in excluding it . from the evidence correct.
    Appeal from a judgment for the defendants in the Fifth District Court of the County of San Joaquin, Booker, J., and from an order denying a new trial in the Superior Court of said County.
    
      Stanton L. Garter, for Appellant.
    
      J. A. Louttit, for Respondents.
   The Court:

This action was brought to enforce a lien for a street assessment. The lots were assessed to “ Shubal Dunham and unknown.” The complaint alleges that “ defendant Shubal Dunham, at and before the date of said assessment, and the presentation thereof to said council, was, and still is, the owner and in possession of * * * and there is duly assessed in his name .on the said assessment list,” the lots mentioned in the complaint. The ruling of the Court in sustaining the objection to admitting the assessment in evidence was correct. The question involved in this case has been frequently before this Court. It ought, at this day, to be unnecessary to refer assessors to the rule laid down by this Court in Himmelman v. Steiner, 38 Cal. 175.

Judgment and order affirmed.