Case Name: CREIGHTON, Respondent, v. LAWRENCE, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1866-07-10
Citations: 1 Cal. Unrep. 295
Docket Number: No. 900
Parties: CREIGHTON, Respondent, v. LAWRENCE, Appellant.
Judges: We concur: Rhodes, J.; Shatter, J.; Currey, C. J.
Reporter: California Unreported Cases
Volume: 1
Pages: 295–296

Head Matter:
CREIGHTON, Respondent, v. LAWRENCE, Appellant.
No. 900;
July 10, 1866.
Street Law. — A Resolution of Intention to Grade a Street Passed by the board of supervisors of San Francisco, prior to the a-ct of April 25, 1862 (Stats. 391), must be presented to the president of the board in order to justify a subsequent lien for street assessments against an adjacent property holder.

Opinion:
SANDERSON, J.
The controlling question in this case was decided in favor of the appellant in Creighton v. Manson, 27 Cal. 614. We there held that a resolution of intention to grade a street, passed by the board of supervisors of the city and county of San Francisco prior to the passage of the act of the 25th of April, 1862 (Stats. 391), must be presented to the president of the board for Iris approval, and that without such approval no lien for street assessments could be enforced against adjacent lots. We are asked to overrule that case but we can see no good reason why that should be done.
The order denying a n.ew trial is reversed and a new trial granted.
We concur: Rhodes, J.; Shatter, J.; Currey, C. J.