Case Name: WARREN & MALLEY, Respondents, v. JAY E. RUSSELL et al., Appellants
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1900-04-06
Citations: 128 Cal. 349
Docket Number: S. F. No. 1257
Parties: WARREN & MALLEY, Respondents, v. JAY E. RUSSELL et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 128
Pages: 349–349

Head Matter:
[S. F. No. 1257.
Department Two.
April 6, 1900.]
WARREN & MALLEY, Respondents, v. JAY E. RUSSELL et al., Appellants.
Stbeet Assessment—Fobeclosube—Appeal—Objections not Sustained by Recobd.—Upon appeal from a judgment foreclosing the lien of a street assessment, where the record of the cause does not sustain objections made by the defendant to the assesment, diagram, warrant, etc., which were prima facie proof of plaintiff’s case, the judgment will be affirmed.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco and from an order denying a new trial. J. H. Seawell, Judge.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
J. E. Bussell, for Appellants.
J. C. Bates, for Bespondents.

Opinion:
THE COURT.
This is an action to foreclose the lien of a street assessment for work done in grading at the comer of Greenwich and Polk streets, in San Francisco. Plaintiff, by the production and introduction of the assessment, warrant, etc., made prima facie proof of his cause and of his right to recover, and rested. The defendant, Bussell, appearing in propria persona, was then sworn and gave testimony somewhat argumentative in its nature, from which it appears that he contended that at the time the grade of the street was established a small portion of the street containing seventy-two and a fraction square feet was held in private ownership. After diligent examination of the record upon appeal, we can find nothing in the nature of evidence sufficient to entitle the contention to a hearing. The same may he said of the second point urged upon this appeal, that the diagram for the work was incorrect and had been altered. after its filing.
The judgment and order appealed from are therefore affirmed.
Hearing in Bank denied.