Majority
p. 798[L. A. No. 6761. In Bank. April 14, 1922.] PETER L. FERRY, Respondent, v. WINIFRED F. MARR, Appellant.
Headnote
[1] Street Law—Vrooman Act—Resolution op Intention—Description op Work—Reassessment—Pleading.—The judgment in this case is affirmed on the authority of the ease of Ferry v. O’Brien, ante, p. 629.APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Leslie R. Hewitt, Judge.
Affirmed.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Winifred F. Marr, in pro. per., for Appellant.
Hartley Shaw for Respondent,
This appeal is identical, as to the questions involved, with the appeal in the ease of Ferry v. O'Brien, ante, p. 629 [ 206 Pac. 449 ], and for the reasons set forth in said decision the judgment herein is affirmed.
Richards, J., pro tem., Shurtleff, J., Lawlor, J., Sloane, J., and Wilbur, J., concurred.
Shaw, C. J., being disqualified by relationship to plaintiff’s attorney, did not participate.
Rehearing denied.
p. 799
All the Justices concurred, except Shaw, C. J., who did not participate, owing to relationship to attorney for respondent.
Waste, J., was absent, and Richards, J., pro. tern., was acting.