This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1894 Excerpt: ... is an appeal from the decision of the city authorities. Cochran v. Collins, 29 Cal. 129; Emery v. Bradford, 29 Cal. 75. 4. See supra, this title, Constitutiona Iity--Notice. B. Stockton v. Creanor, 45 Cal. 643; St. Louis v. Richeson, 76 Mo. 470; Murdock v. Cincinnati, 44 Fed. Rep. 726. The sufficiency of the petition by property owners may not be called in question in such action, as that is a matter to be determined by the common council. Scranton v. Jermyn, 156 Pa. St. 107. 6. Fass v. Seehawer, 60 Wis. 525; Emery v. Bradford, 29 Cal. 75; Cochran v. Collins, 29 Cal. 130; Dixon v. Detroit, 86 Mich. 516; Motz v. Detroit, 18 Mich. 514; State v. Jersey City, 29 N. J. L. 441; Municipality No. 2 v. Guillotte, 14 La. Ann. 295; Ricketts z: Hyde Park. S5 111. no; Murray v. Tucker, 10 Bush (Ky.) 240; Henderson v. Lambert, 14 Bush (Ky.)24; Whitfield v. Hippie (Ky. 1S89), 12 S. W. Rep. 50. Where the contractor receives tax bills in payment for work, a substantial compliance with the contract is sufficient to warrant a recovery thereof, Pittsburgh v. McConnell, 130 Pa. St. 463; Erie v. Butler, 120 Pa. St. 374; Watson v. Philadelphia, 93 Pa. St. in; Harrisburg v. Baptist, 156 Pa. St. 526; but where there is no pretense that all the work provided for in the contract has been done, a city cannot, by accepting a portion of it, bind lot owners to the payment of assessments therefor. Henderson v. Lambert, 14 Bush (Ky.) 24. And where the work is not completed within the time specified, and the council refuses to extend the time, there can be no valid assessment made therefor, notwithstanding the contractor goes on and completes the job. Mappa v. Los Angeles, 61 Cal. 309. But it has been held that where the work was imperfectly done, a property owner sued on a special tax bil...