People v. Doe

         The only ground upon which appellant relies for a reversal of the judgment is, " that every requirement of the law is answered by the allegations of the complaint." Our reply is twofold:

         1st. That the complaint is not sufficient under the statute; and,

         2d. That if the statute authorized such a complaint it would be unconstitutional.

         The law under which the suit was commenced (Stats. 1869-70, 898, Sec. 9) provides that actions for the collection of delinquent street assessments shall be brought in the name of The People of the City and County, etc., " and against the owners and all persons having any interest therein; " in other words, it prescribes who the parties, plaintiff and defendant, are to be. It also requires the complaint, among other things, " to show the parties plaintiff and defendant," --that is, as we contend, to show by proper averments who are the owners and parties interested. Such, and such only, can, under the statute, be parties defendant, and such the statute expressly requires to be " shown."

         The complaint here professes in the caption to be against " Bartlett Doe and J. S. Doe et al.," and in the body to be against " defendants Bartlett Doe and J. S. Doe." There is no allegation that they or either of them own the property, or have or ever had any interest in it.

         OPINION          By the Court:

         We think that in proceedings to recover upon a street assessment, it is necessary that the complaint should allege that the defendants are the owners, or have some interest in the premises sought to be charged with the alleged lien. By the thirteenth section of the Act, it is expressly provided in terms that actions for the collection of any delinquent street assessment shall be brought * * * " against the owners and all persons having any interest therein; " and unless the defendants are alleged to be persons of that character, there would appear to be no reason to implead them as defendants, and no authority to enforce the lien in the absence of the real parties in interest.

         Judgment affirmed.