The San Francisco call., 1896-12-30
Owners Need Not Pay for
the Grading of Union
Street.
5 supervisors Were Without Juris.
dlctlon to Order the Work
Done.
Decision Concerning Many Property
Owners Rendered by the Supreme
Court Yesterday.

The Supreme Court yesterday handed
down a decision of much interest to
owners of real estate on Union street,
between Larkin and Franklin. The
case Is known as that of Spauld ing
against Wesson and others. Wesson, the
defendant in the suit, became vested in
1872 with title to a 100-vara lot, which
had been granted by Leavenworth, then
AlcaIde of San Francisco. in 1848. This
1O0-vara lot embraced the premises OF
Wesson. and also portion of Union street
fronting thereon.
A part of Union street. situated be-
tween Larkin ana Franklin, is IN what is
known as the Lsguna survey. In this
tract were several 100-vara lots, which
were conveyed by Leavenworth in 184s.
these being contiguous to each other with
out any intervening street. Union street
was projected through the tract by the
Van Ness ordinance, but it has been held
in Scott VS.. Dyer, 81 CAL, 430, that by the
Leavenworth grants the grantees became
the absolute owners of the lands granted
and that no portion of these lands could
be appropriated to the use of the public as
a street, except upon making compensa-
tion therefor.
August 13, 1877, resolution was adopted
by the Board of Supervisors ordering the
grading of Union street from Larkin to
the westerly line of Franklin. After the
work was done action was begun to re-
cover the street assessment upon the land
OF Wesson. Judgment was rendered for
the plaintiff. SpauldiDg anc The defend
ants appealed. The lower court found
that the Supervisors had acquired juris.
diction TO order the work at the daie of
the passage of the resolution, The de-
PENDANTS contested this strongly. The
Supreme Court finds that the Supervisors
had no jurisdiction and has remanded the
case for q new trial.
A part of the decision of the court is in
teresting. as it defines the exact status of
the land granted by Leavenworth. ''The
street improvement act, SO the decision
reads, under which these proceedings
were had, gave to the Board of Supervisors
authority to order the improvement of
only public streets; and when it was
street between Larkin and Franklin was
held in private ownership and had not
been dedicated to public use. it was clear
that the order for its grading and all the
proceedings taken Hereunder were with
out authority and were Intellectual to Gre
ate a lien upon adjacent lands"
A dedication of the street in front of
one lot the court also found. would not
have the effect to dedicate other portions
of the street which were held by different
owners. The Improvement of the street
from Larkin to Franklin was an entirely,
and unless the Board of Supervisors had
jurisdiction to order the grading of the
whole of that portion of the street no por-
ton of the expense could be made lien
upon the defendants lot.
The entire cost of the grading was by
the act to be assessed upon the entire
frontage, and each lot at rate per front
foot sufficient 10 cover the total expense
of the work. There was no authority to
charge the defendants lot with the bur-
den OF any por tion of the expense of grad
ing private property adjacent thereto
which lay within the lines of the street,
and an assessment which included such
charges would be invalid. Unless there
was jurisdiction in the munici pality to
make the improvement at the time the or
der was passed such jurisdiction could not
be established by subsequent dedication
of the street.