Case Name: COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, Respondent, v. J. H. STEWART, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1916-08-03
Citations: 173 Cal. 253
Docket Number: L. A. No. 3767
Parties: COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, Respondent, v. J. H. STEWART, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 173
Pages: 253–254

Head Matter:
.[L. A. No. 3767.
Department Two.
August 3, 1916.]
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, Respondent, v. J. H. STEWART, Appellant.
Lien—Fumigation by County of Infected Orchard—Insufficient Notice to Owner.—A notice to the owner of an infected orchard to eradicate injurious insects or pests, which was issued and signed by the local inspector and not by the county horticultural commissioner, and was served by the inspector without the authority or knowledge of the commissioner, is insufficient to create a lien in favor of the county for the expenses incurred by it in fumigating the orchard.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, and from an order refusing a new trial. Z. B. West, Judge presiding.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
E. C. Campbell, for Appellant.
R. B. Goodcell, District Attorney, and Frank T. Bates, Deputy District Attorney, for Respondent.

Opinion:
MELVIN, J.
Defendant appeals from the judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.
The action was one by the county of San Bernardino to foreclose an alleged lien upon defendant's land for expenses incurred and paid by the county in fumigating defendant's orchard and freeing the trees of noxious insects. In some particulars the cause resembles County of San Bernardino v. Stewart, L. A. No. 3766, in which an opinion was filed on August 1, 1916, ante, p. 236, [159 Pac. 717]. There are certain differences in this case. For example, it appears that service of notice was made upon defendant personally. He waived the five days within which he might have done the work, under the terms of the notice, and permitted the premises to be entered and the fumigating of the trees to proceed. In all other particulars this case is just like the one cited. In this, as in that, the notice was issued and signed by the local inspector and not by the county horticultural commissioner. It does not appear that the commissioner either directed or was cognizant of the service of the notice to fumigate the trees. As the inspector's authority to give the notice does not appear, and as this being a proceeding in invitum it must be shown that the statutory method of procedure was followed in order that the lien should attach, we must hold on the authority of County of San Bernardino v. Stewart, supra, that the jurisdiction of the lower court was not shown, and that the judgment does not find full support in the record.
The judgment and order are reversed.
" Henshaw, J., and Lorigan, J., concurred.