The record-union., 1897-06-29
THAT STREET ASSESSMENT.
THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF
KING AGAINST LAMB.
Why the Supreme Court Ruled
Against the Defendants
Contentious.

The recent decision given by the Su-
preme Court in the case of Antonio
King, plaintiff and respondent, against
Manuel J. Lamb, defendant and appel
liant, a reference to which was pub
lished in Saturdays edition Of the
Record Union" is Of considerable To-
cal interest.
The action was brought by the plain
tiff to foreclose a lien for street work
on a portion of lot No. 4, in the block
bounded by 7 and Z, Second and Third
streets, in this city, the property Of the
defendant. The trial court found for
the plaintiff in the sum of SO "A, with
interest and attorneys fees amounting
to SO. The defendant appealed from
the judgment and from an order de-
nying his motion for a new trial.
The main ground upon which the
defendant relied for a reversal of the
judgment and order was that the City
Board of Trustees never acquired jur-
isdiction to order the improvements,
and made three points in support of his
contention, the first of which was that
the board did not designate the news
paper in which the resolution of in
tention should be published.
1t was cOntended that no order or
resolution was passed by the Board,
other than appears in the resolution
itself, and that an order to publish a
notice of the adoption of a resolution
cannot be construed as providing for
the publication of the resolution, and
that the requirements of the statute
in this particular, is jurisdictional
No question was raised that the reso-
luton as adopted was not published
in accordance with the requirements
of the statute, and the court held that
it was not at all material that a sep
arate order was not made designating
the paper in which the publication
should be made
1t was contended, however, that the
order was not for the publication of
the resolution Of intention, but for the
publication of a notice of the adop-
ton of the resolution. On this point
the Court holds that if the words, mo
tice of adoption Of had been omitted,
the direction would have been per-
fectly clear that the resolution should
be published for a period Of two days,
and the notice thereof for six days,
but the words, it was held, may be
regarded as mere surplusage which
cannot, and certainly did not mislead
since the resolution itself was pub
1ished as required by the order
The second contention was that the
resolution of intention was not posted
1t was conceded that the resolution as
posted contained the entire body of
the resolution, but that the vote by
which it was passed was omitted. and
that it was signed only. by the Clerk
of the board. o. S. Flint.
The statute touching upon the point
is quoted as follows: Before order
ng any work done, or Improvement
made, which is authorized by section
of this Act, the City Council shall
pass a resolution of intention so to do.
and describing the work, which shall
be posted conspicuously for two days
on or near the chamber door of the
City Council, and published by two
insertions in one or more semi-weekly
or weekly newspapers. published and
circulated in said city, and designated
by said Council for that purpose.
In disposing Of the point the court
holds that the publication of ordi-
nances is not made essential to their
validity. The street law not having
nectiOn with the resolution or ordi-
nance, of the names of those voting
thereon, such publication is unneces-
sary unless required by the charter of
the city, which, as we have seen. re-
quires only that the vote be recorded
in the minutes. We think the posting
of the resolution without attaching the
names Of those voting for or against it
was a sufficient compliance with the
statute"
The third contention was that the
Board of Trustees did not determine
the character and amount of the work
to be done, and the place where the
work was to be done, and for that rea-
son did not acquire jurisdiction to do
the work. Under the latter conten-
ton the appellant specified that the
board did not determine how many
cross walks should be laid or the
length of the stakes or posts to which
the curbing was to be nailed, nor the
number of drainage culverts and the
places where the same should be put
The latter contention, the court held,
could not be sustained. The decision
holds that the specification relating to
posts is sufficiently definite.
The appellant also c0ntended that the
trial court erred in admitting in evil
dence a paper submitted to the Board
of Trustees by the property own
ers having property fronting on T
street from Third to Eighth, agreeing
that the contract for grading said
street should be let to Antonio King,
and in permitting proof that the de-
fendant signed the paper. The Su