From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Callender v. Patterson

Supreme Court of California
Jan 16, 1885
66 Cal. 356 (Cal. 1885)

Opinion

         Department Two

         Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial.

         COUNSEL:

         The assessment was void for the reason that the work was not completed in time (Beveridge v. Livingstone , 54 Cal. 56); the defendants are not estopped to deny the validity of the assessment. (Farish v. Coon , 40 Cal. 33.)

         Edward Kirkpatrick, for Appellants.

          Shafter, Parker & Waterman, for Respondent.


         The defendants are estopped from setting up any defense growing out of the proceedings prior to assignment to defeat the assignee. (City of Burlington v. Gilbert, 31 Iowa 356; Correy v. Graynor, 22 Ohio St. 584.)

         JUDGES: Thornton, J. Myrick, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.

         OPINION

          THORNTON, Judge

         It appears in this cause, which was an action to enforce the lien of a street assessment, that the property owners took the contract for doing the work, and that after the work was done and the assessment made by the proper officer, the contractors assigned for value received to the plaintiff all their right, title and interest in said contract, and in the assessment, warrant, and diagram, and all the moneys due and to grow due thereon.

         Patterson, one of the contracting property owners and assignors, was a party defendant, and the court rendered judgment against him.

         It is contended that Patterson, the appellant, is estopped to deny the validity of the contract and of the assessment. We are of opinion that this point is well taken. A party cannot for value assign a contract and assessment, and then set up the defense that they are invalid, because not in compliance with the street law. The law does not tolerate such a procedure. Having accepted a benefit under it, he cannot be heard to say that it is invalid.

         Judgment and order affirmed.


Summaries of

Callender v. Patterson

Supreme Court of California
Jan 16, 1885
66 Cal. 356 (Cal. 1885)
Case details for

Callender v. Patterson

Case Details

Full title:H. A. CALLENDER, Respondent, v. WILLIAM H. PATTERSON et al., Appellants

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Jan 16, 1885

Citations

66 Cal. 356 (Cal. 1885)
5 P. 610

Citing Cases

Union Paving & Contracting Co. v. McGovern

There was no agreement on his part to perform any of the terms of their contract with the superintendent of…

Spinney v. Downing

          Frank H. Short, for Respondents.          A party performing acts under a contract is bound…