From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Himmelmann v. Satterlee

Supreme Court of California
Oct 1, 1874
49 Cal. 387 (Cal. 1874)

Opinion

         Appeal from the District Court, Fourth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco.

         Action to recover the amount of an assessment for street work in San Francisco. The plaintiff recovered judgment, and the defendants appealed.

         COUNSEL

          John Satterlee, and McAllisters & Bergin, for the Appellants.

         Parker & Roche, for the Respondent.


         JUDGES: Rhodes, J. Mr. Justice Niles did not express an opinion.

         OPINION

          RHODES, Judge.

         It is alleged in the complaint that the Board of Supervisors caused due notice of the award of the contract to be published, etc., for the requisite period. It was proved that the Board never passed any ordinance or resolution directing the publication of the resolution of award; but that the Clerk of the Board published it without being authorized or directed so to do.

         It was held in Donnelly v. Tillman (47 Cal. 40), that it was the duty of the Board of Supervisors to order the notice of the award of the contract to be published; and that the publication was not legal or sufficient unless made in pursuance of an order of the Board. That case has repeatedly been affirmed in this Court.

         Judgment and order reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial. Remittitur forthwith.


Summaries of

Himmelmann v. Satterlee

Supreme Court of California
Oct 1, 1874
49 Cal. 387 (Cal. 1874)
Case details for

Himmelmann v. Satterlee

Case Details

Full title:A. HIMMELMANN v. JOHN SATTERLEE et al.

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Oct 1, 1874

Citations

49 Cal. 387 (Cal. 1874)

Citing Cases

Stanwood v. Carson

(Oakland Paving Co. v. Barstow, 79 Cal. 49, [21 P. 544]; Gay v. Engebretsen, 158 Cal. 25, [139 Am. St. Rep.…

Sacramento v. Dillman

The publication of the ordinance was a prerequisite to its validity, and not having been published for the…