Brock v. Luning
Citations
- 89 Cal. 316
- 26 P. 972
- 1891 Cal. LEXIS 816
Syllabus
<p>Street Improvement — Extension of Time.—Under the act o£ 1872, neither the hoard of supervisors of the city and county of San Francisco nor the superintendent of streets possesses the power to grant extensions of time for the performance of work under a street contract after the expiration of the time limited in the contract, and an order granting such extension is void.</p> <p>Id. — Void Assessment—Proceedings in Invitum. — Proceedings upon which a street assessment are based, being in invitum, must he strictly pursued in strict compliance with the law under which they are taken, else the assessment will he void.</p> <p>Id.—Contract for Street-work — Time for Completion — Power of Superintendent of Streets — Excessive Allowance of Time.— The award by the board of supervisors of a contract for a street improvement is the measure of the power of the superintendent of streets as to the time for the completion of the work, which is of the essence of the contract; and if the contract entered into by the street superintendent does not follow the award, hut grants more time for the completion of the work than is specified in the award, it is not the contract he was authorized to make, and is therefore invalid; and an assessment based npon such void contract is also void, and cannot he enforced.</p> <p>Id.—Failure to Appeal — Void Contract—Grievance of Property Owner — Estoppel. — Where the action of the superintendent of streets in awarding a contract is void, the failure of the property owner to appeal, under section 12 of the law of 1872, to the board of supervisors, would not render the void contract valid; nor would the failure of</p> <p>?! the contractor to appeal create a grievance on the part of the property owner, or estop him from complaining of a void assessment based upon the contract.</p> <p>Id. — Eight of Appeal — Party “Aggrieved. ”—A property owner whose property has been assessed under a void contract for street-work is not a party “aggrieved,” and is n
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- concluding that the appellant was not entitled to a new trial because the State recreated the missing transcript of one trial day by calling three of the four witnesses who had testified that day as well as trial counsel for both parties
- concluding that Mosley was not entitled to a new trial when the State re-created the transcript of one missing day of trial based on a hearing at which three of the four witnesses called that day testified along with Mosley’s trial counsel and the prosecutor
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.