California Supreme Court, 1881

City of Stockton v. Dunham

California Supreme Court · Decided November 15, 1881

59 Cal. 609

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

Gilcrest v. Bowen (Mont. 1933)
Morton Realty Co. v. Big Bend Irrigation & M. Co. (Idaho 1923)
Stanwood v. Carson (Cal. 1915)
Doe v. Allen (Cal. Ct. App. 1905)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

The Court:

The assessment in this case, and the allegations of the complaint as to ownership and possession, are the same as in case *611No. 7,218, with the exception that in this case the assessment was to “ S. Dunham or unknown.” That variation, however, makes no difference; the assessment, in either case, did not comply with the statute. (Himmelman v. Steiner, 38 Cal. 175.)

However, when the assessment roll was offered in evidence, and objection to it was made, the Court continued the hearing of the cause; and thereafter, without ruling upon the objection, and without other or further hearing, rendered judgment for the defendant. This was error; and for this reason the judgment and order are reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.