Skip to main content
· 7/1/1868

Dougherty v. Hitchcock

Citations

  • 35 Cal. 512
  • 1868 Cal. LEXIS 121

Syllabus

<p>Street Assessment in San Francisco — Mode of its Authentication. — An assessment made by the Superintendent of Streets of San Francisco, to cover the sum due for the improvement of a street, is an official act, and must be attested by his official signature.</p> <p>Idem, as Evidence.—An assessment not thus officially attested, though attached to the diagram and the Superintendent’s warrant, which were in due form and properly attested, does not constitute a valid assessment, and is not admissible in evidence, either by itself or in connection with the warrant and diagram.</p> <p>Contracts and Assessments for Street Improvements. — Under the statute regulating street improvements in San Francisco the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution of intention to grade Clay street from Taylor to Jones and from Jones to Leavenworth streets, and the crossing of Clay and Jones streets, and subsequently ordered said work to be done, and the clerk advertised for proposals for its performance, notifying bidders to put in separate bids for each block and said crossing. The Board awarded a contract for the whole work. The only contract entered into by the Superintendent of Streets, etc., with the successful bidder, was for the grading of one block only—that from Jones and Leavenworth streets. Held, first, that the resolution of intention and its publication constituted the sole authority of the Board to proceed, in the statute mode, to order said work to be done, and that thereby no authority was conferred to act upon any other or different work; second, that the work designated in the resolution of intention constituted one distinct and entire subject matter ; third, that the resolution of award constituted the sole authority to the Super ntendent, who acted ministerially only in making a contract under it, and that the contract, by reason of variance between its terms and the resolution of award, was unauthorized and void; and fourth, that a contract duly authorized under sai

Judges: Rhodes, Sawyer, Sprague

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.