Frick v. City of Los Angeles

Citations

• 115 Cal. 512
• 47 P. 250
• 1896 Cal. LEXIS 1039

Syllabus

<p>Municipal Charter — Requirement of Written Contracts—Constitutional Law—Conflict with General Laws—Formation of Contracts.—Section 207 of the charter of the city of Los Angeles (Stats. 1889, p. 506), requiring contracts of the city to be in writing and signed by the mayor or some other person authorized thereto, in behalf of the city, is. constitutional and valid, and is not in conflict with the provisions of the Civil Code concerning the manner of creating contracts, nor void under section 6 of article XI of the constitution, which declares that such charters “shall be subject to and controlled by general laws.”</p> <p>Id.—Charter a Statute—Construction of Code.—The charter of the city of Los Angeles is, to the extent of its operation as a scheme of local government, a “statute” within the meaning of section 1622 of the Civil Code, providing that all contracts may be oral, except when required by statute' to be in writing.</p> <p>Id.—Invalid Contract for Sewer—Damages for Prevention of Performance—Defective Execution—Order for Signature by Mayor —Equity—Conjectural Loss of Profits.—A contract for the construction of a sewer, signed only by the parties agreeing to do the work, and not by the mayor, or by anyone authorized to sign it on behalf of the city, being invalid under the city charter, no action can be maintained for damages for prevention of its performance by the city; and the fact that the city council complied, on their part, with all the requirements of the charter, and ordered the mayor to sign the contract, does not give the signers a right in equity to have its defective execution aided and the contract treated as though signed by the mayor, no work having been done under the instrument and no detriment suffered by the signers, excepting the conjectural loss of profits which they might have made by performance of the contract, if it had been really made.</p>