conclusive evidence clause in California

1962(Baird v. Monroe, 150 Cal. 560 [ 89 P. 352 ] ; Board of Education v. Hyatt, 152 Cal. 515 [ 93 P. 117 ] ; Wilcox v. Engelretsen, 160 Cal. 288 [ 116 P. 750 ] ; Schaffer v. Smith, 169 Cal. 764 [ 147 P. 976 ]; Imperial Land Co. v. Imperial Irr.

1920The conclusive evidence clause of section 4 of the Bond Act is a part of the law under which the proceeding was carried on, and its effect is the same as if it declared that, although all of these intermediate steps are directed, yet, if they are not performed as required, and the owner permits the matter to proceed until the bond is issued, he shall be thenceforth precluded from proof of such nonobservance, and the requirements shall be conclusively presumed to have been complied with, excepting those which are necessary to comply with constitutional mandates. " (Italics ours.) This language

1962(Baird v. Monroe, 150 Cal. 560 [ 89 P. 352 ] ; Board of Education v. Hyatt, 152 Cal. 515 [ 93 P. 117 ] ; Wilcox v. Engelretsen, 160 Cal. 288 [ 116 P. 750 ] ; Schaffer v. Smith, 169 Cal. 764 [ 147 P. 976 ]; Imperial Land Co. v. Imperial Irr.

1920The conclusive evidence clause of section 4 of the Bond Act is a part of the law under which the proceeding was carried on, and its effect is the same as if it declared that, although all of these intermediate steps are directed, yet, if they are not performed as required, and the owner permits the matter to proceed until the bond is issued, he shall be thenceforth precluded from proof of such nonobservance, and the requirements shall be conclusively presumed to have been complied with, excepting those which are necessary to comply with constitutional mandates. " (Italics ours.) This language

1920The conclusive evidence clause of section 4 of the Bond Act is a part of the law under which the proceeding was carried on, and its effect is the same as if it declared that, although all of these intermediate steps are directed, yet, if they are not performed as required, and the owner permits the matter to proceed until the bond is issued, he shall be thenceforth precluded from proof of such nonobservance, and the requirements shall be conclusively presumed to have been complied with, excepting those which are necessary to comply with constitutional mandates. " (Italics ours.) This language

1920The conclusive evidence clause of section 4 of the Bond Act is a part of the law under which the proceeding was carried on, and its effect is the same as if it declared that, although all of these intermediate steps are directed, yet, if they are not performed as required, and the owner permits the matter to proceed until the bond is issued, he shall be thenceforth precluded from proof of such nonobservance, and the requirements shall be conclusively presumed to have been complied with, excepting those which are necessary to comply with constitutional mandates. " (Italics ours.) This language

1920The conclusive evidence clause of section 4 of the Bond Act is a part of the law under which the proceeding was carried on, and its effect is the same as if it declared that, although all of these intermediate steps are directed, yet, if they are not performed as required, and the owner permits the matter to proceed until the bond is issued, he shall be thenceforth precluded from proof of such nonobservance, and the requirements shall be conclusively presumed to have been complied with, excepting those which are necessary to comply with constitutional mandates. " (Italics ours.) This language

1920The conclusive evidence clause of section 4 of the Bond Act is a part of the law under which the proceeding was carried on, and its effect is the same as if it declared that, although all of these intermediate steps are directed, yet, if they are not performed as required, and the owner permits the matter to proceed until the bond is issued, he shall be thenceforth precluded from proof of such nonobservance, and the requirements shall be conclusively presumed to have been complied with, excepting those which are necessary to comply with constitutional mandates. " (Italics ours.) This language

1918S. Dist. v. Escondido Seminary, 130 Cal. 128, 133 , [ 62 Pac. 401 ], and held in Bruschi v. Cooper, 30 Cal. App. 682, 692 , [ 159 Pac. 728, 734 ], the legislative intent was that the deed should be conclusive with respect, only, to matters not covered by the preceding provision declaring its effect as prima facie evidence.

1918S. Dist. v. Escondido Seminary, 130 Cal. 128, 133 , [ 62 Pac. 401 ], and held in Bruschi v. Cooper, 30 Cal. App. 682, 692 , [ 159 Pac. 728, 734 ], the legislative intent was that the deed should be conclusive with respect, only, to matters not covered by the preceding provision declaring its effect as prima facie evidence.

1915Appellant further calls attention to the fact that on June 26, 1911, four days before issuance of the warrant of assessment in the case at bar, there became effective an amendment to section 4 of the Street Improvement Bond Act, providing that bonds issued thereunder “shall be conclusive evidence of the regularity of all proceedings thereto under said street work act and under this act, previous to the making of the certified list of all assessments unpaid to the amount of twenty-five dollars or over by the street superintendent to the city treasurer, and of the validity of said lien up to the

1915Appellant further calls attention to the fact that on June 26, 1911, four days before issuance of the warrant of assessment in the case at bar, there became effective an amendment to section 4 of the Street Improvement Bond Act, providing that bonds issued thereunder “shall be conclusive evidence of the regularity of all proceedings thereto under said street work act and under this act, previous to the making of the certified list of all assessments unpaid to the amount of twenty-five dollars or over by the street superintendent to the city treasurer, and of the validity of said lien up to the

1977The conclusive-evidence clause of section 4 oft he Bond Act is a part of the law under which the proceeding was carried on, and its effect is the same as if it declared that, although all of these intermediate steps are directed, yet, if they are not performed as required, and the owner permits the matter to proceed until the bond is issued, he shall be thenceforth precluded from proof of such non-observance, and the requirements shall be conclusively presumed to *440 have been complied with, excepting those which are necessary to comply with constitutional mandates.” (Id., at pp. 359-360; see

1977(Chase v. Trout, supra, 146 Cal. at pp. 362 and 369-370; cf., Witter v. Bachman, supra, 117 Cal. 318, 323-324 .) We may assume that there must be some record of the assessments, but there is no constitutional requirement that would preclude the Legislature from providing that the warrant, diagram and assessment be kept in a loose-leaf file in the designated official’s office.

1965But defects and omissions which go to the jurisdiction of the board to act at all, and which make their action absolutely void, cannot be cured in this manner. ’ ’ At page 800, the Supreme Court concluded: “The attempt to validate a tax levied by a pretended corporation having no legal authority over the property taxed would, if given effect, be equivalent to the imposition of an obligation by statute without due process of law.” In Miller v. McKenna, 23 Cal.2d 774 [ 147 P.2d 531 ], the court held that where proceedings are so defective that no title passes, a curative act cannot be used to va

1965But defects and omissions which go to the jurisdiction of the board to act at all, and which make their action absolutely void, cannot be cured in this manner. ’ ’ At page 800, the Supreme Court concluded: “The attempt to validate a tax levied by a pretended corporation having no legal authority over the property taxed would, if given effect, be equivalent to the imposition of an obligation by statute without due process of law.” In Miller v. McKenna, 23 Cal.2d 774 [ 147 P.2d 531 ], the court held that where proceedings are so defective that no title passes, a curative act cannot be used to va

1955This, according to all the authorities, is the theory and effect of a ratifying act.” (See also McKenzie v. Mukilteo Water Dist., 4 Wn.2d 103 [ 102 P.2d 251 ].) We quote the following from People v. Van Nuys Lighting Dist., 173 Cal. 792, 797 [ 162 P. 97 , Ann.Cas. 1918D 255 ] : “A curative act or a conclusive evidence clause in a statute is effective to cure all defects resulting from a failure to comply with provisions which are merely directory of the mode of the exercise of the power.” (See 2 Cooley’s Const. Lim. 8th ed. 790.) In this case by the subject legislation the Legislature delegate

1955This, according to all the authorities, is the theory and effect of a ratifying act.” (See also McKenzie v. Mukilteo Water Dist., 4 Wn.2d 103 [ 102 P.2d 251 ].) We quote the following from People v. Van Nuys Lighting Dist., 173 Cal. 792, 797 [ 162 P. 97 , Ann.Cas. 1918D 255 ] : “A curative act or a conclusive evidence clause in a statute is effective to cure all defects resulting from a failure to comply with provisions which are merely directory of the mode of the exercise of the power.” (See 2 Cooley’s Const. Lim. 8th ed. 790.) In this case by the subject legislation the Legislature delegate

1920Dist., 173 Cal. 660 , [ 161 P. 113 ].) In Wilcox v. Engebretsen, supra, the statute provided that no change of grade should be made except on the petition of a majority of the property owners affected.

1920Dist., 173 Cal. 660 , [ 161 P. 113 ].) In Wilcox v. Engebretsen, supra, the statute provided that no change of grade should be made except on the petition of a majority of the property owners affected.

1918S. Dist. v. Escondido Seminary, 130 Cal. 128, 133 , [ 62 Pac. 401 ], and held in Bruschi v. Cooper, 30 Cal. App. 682, 692 , [ 159 Pac. 728, 734 ], the legislative intent was that the deed should be conclusive with respect, only, to matters not covered by the preceding provision declaring its effect as prima facie evidence.

1918S. Dist. v. Escondido Seminary, 130 Cal. 128, 133 , [ 62 Pac. 401 ], and held in Bruschi v. Cooper, 30 Cal. App. 682, 692 , [ 159 Pac. 728, 734 ], the legislative intent was that the deed should be conclusive with respect, only, to matters not covered by the preceding provision declaring its effect as prima facie evidence.

1916The decision can be supported on the ground that the conclusive evidence clause does not extend to defects in the deed itself, as was held in Henderson v. De Turk, 164 Cal. 296 , [ 128 P. 747 ].

1916The decision can be supported on the ground that the conclusive evidence clause does not extend to defects in the deed itself, as was held in Henderson v. De Turk, 164 Cal. 296 , [ 128 P. 747 ].

1916The deed is made prima facie evidence that '(a) the property was assessed as required by law; (b) that the property was equalized as required by law; (c) that the assessments were levied in accordance with law; (d) the assessments were not paid; (e) at a proper time and place the property was sold as required by law; and by the proper officers; (f) the property was not redeemed; (g) the person who executed the deed was the proper officer.' "In Bank of Lemoore v. Fulgham, 151 Cal. 234 , 239, 240, [ 90 P. 936 ], the scope of the conclusive evidence clause is defined.

1916The deed is made prima facie evidence that '(a) the property was assessed as required by law; (b) that the property was equalized as required by law; (c) that the assessments were levied in accordance with law; (d) the assessments were not paid; (e) at a proper time and place the property was sold as required by law; and by the proper officers; (f) the property was not redeemed; (g) the person who executed the deed was the proper officer.' "In Bank of Lemoore v. Fulgham, 151 Cal. 234 , 239, 240, [ 90 P. 936 ], the scope of the conclusive evidence clause is defined.

1911(Chase v. Trout, 146 Cal. 356 , [ 80 Pac. 81 ].) In the case just cited, and in German, etc. Society v. Ramish, 138 Cal. 130 , [ 69 Pac. 89 ], it was held that the conclusive evidence clause of the Street Improvement Bond Act of 1893 cured all such defects.

1905(Turney v. Dougherty, 53 Cal. 619 : Beveridge v. Livingstone, 54 Cal. 54 ; Mappa v. Los Angeles, 61 Cal. 309 ; Fanning v. Schammel, 68 Cal. 429 ; Dougherty v. Coffin, 69 Cal. 455 ; Brock v. Luning, 89 Cal. 319 ; Palmer v. Burnham, 120 Cal. 364 .) This radical defect, however, appellant insists, is cured by the conclusive-evidence clause of the Bond Act, and herein the reasoning is that the conclusive-evidence clause of the act is in its nature curative, and validates anything and everything done or not done, jurisdictional or otherwise, the doing of which the legislature might in the first ins

1905(Turney v. Dougherty, 53 Cal. 619 : Beveridge v. Livingstone, 54 Cal. 54 ; Mappa v. Los Angeles, 61 Cal. 309 ; Fanning v. Schammel, 68 Cal. 429 ; Dougherty v. Coffin, 69 Cal. 455 ; Brock v. Luning, 89 Cal. 319 ; Palmer v. Burnham, 120 Cal. 364 .) This radical defect, however, appellant insists, is cured by the conclusive-evidence clause of the Bond Act, and herein the reasoning is that the conclusive-evidence clause of the act is in its nature curative, and validates anything and everything done or not done, jurisdictional or otherwise, the doing of which the legislature might in the first ins

1905(Turney v. Dougherty, 53 Cal. 619 : Beveridge v. Livingstone, 54 Cal. 54 ; Mappa v. Los Angeles, 61 Cal. 309 ; Fanning v. Schammel, 68 Cal. 429 ; Dougherty v. Coffin, 69 Cal. 455 ; Brock v. Luning, 89 Cal. 319 ; Palmer v. Burnham, 120 Cal. 364 .) This radical defect, however, appellant insists, is cured by the conclusive-evidence clause of the Bond Act, and herein the reasoning is that the conclusive-evidence clause of the act is in its nature curative, and validates anything and everything done or not done, jurisdictional or otherwise, the doing of which the legislature might in the first ins

1905(Turney v. Dougherty, 53 Cal. 619 : Beveridge v. Livingstone, 54 Cal. 54 ; Mappa v. Los Angeles, 61 Cal. 309 ; Fanning v. Schammel, 68 Cal. 429 ; Dougherty v. Coffin, 69 Cal. 455 ; Brock v. Luning, 89 Cal. 319 ; Palmer v. Burnham, 120 Cal. 364 .) This radical defect, however, appellant insists, is cured by the conclusive-evidence clause of the Bond Act, and herein the reasoning is that the conclusive-evidence clause of the act is in its nature curative, and validates anything and everything done or not done, jurisdictional or otherwise, the doing of which the legislature might in the first ins

1905The latter portion of section 4 of said last-named act, after setting forth the conditions whereunder and the terms whereby such bonds may be issued, provides as follows: "Said bonds, by their issuance, shall be conclusive evidence of the regularity of all proceedings thereto under said Street Work Act and this act, previous to the making of the certified list of all assessments unpaid to the amount of $50 or over by the street superintendent, to the city treasurer, and of the validity of said lien, up to date of said list." In Ramish v. Hartwell, 126 Cal. 443 , this conclusive-evidence clause

1905This, within certain limitations, is true, but the limitations are set forth in Ramish v. Hartwell, 126 Cal. 443 , and are all important.