Case Name: WILLIAM VAN LOENEN et al., Respondents, v. FRANK GILLESPIE et al., Appellants
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1907-10-22
Citations: 152 Cal. 222
Docket Number: L. A. No. 1770
Parties: WILLIAM VAN LOENEN et al., Respondents, v. FRANK GILLESPIE et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 152
Pages: 222–223

Head Matter:
[L. A. No. 1770.
In Bank.
October 22, 1907.]
WILLIAM VAN LOENEN et al., Respondents, v. FRANK GILLESPIE et al., Appellants.
Street Assessment—Provisions m Specifications Increasing Burden on Property-Owner.—A provision in a city ordinance, referred to and made part of the specifications for proposed street work, that “ all loss or damage arising from the nature of the worlc to he done under this agreement, or from any unforeseen obstructions or difficulties which may be encountered in the prosecution of the same, or from the action of the elements, or from any encumbrances on the lines of the work, or from any act or omission upon the part of the contractor, or any person or agent employed by him, not authorized by this agreement, shall he sustained hy the contractor,” is unauthorized by statute and renders void an assessment for such work.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. M. T. Allen, Judge.
The facts are stated in the opinion rendered in Department Two.
Albert J. Sherer, and J. Wiseman Macdonald, for Appellants.
O. B. Carter, for Respondents.

Opinion:
THE COURT.
It is ordered that the opinion heretofore rendered by this court in Department Two in this case is adopted as the opinion by the court in Bank, and judgment affirmed accordingly.
Shaw, J., and Lorigan, J., dissented for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in Woollacott v. Meekins, 151 Cal. 701, heretofore denied by the court in Bank:—
The following is the opinion of Department Two, rendered on the fourth day of April, 1907, and adopted by the court in Bank:—