Murphy v. Napa County

Citations

• 20 Cal. 497
• 1862 Cal. LEXIS 67

Syllabus

<p>The effect of the proviso in the twelfth section of the Act of I860, concerning Roads and Highways in the counties of Humboldt, Napa and Siskiyou, is to limit the power of contracting, in reference to roads and highways, to the mode there pointed out; and this limitation applies as well to the Board of Supervisors as to the overseer; and a contract made in any other manner is not binding upon the county.</p> <p>The plaintiff proved that he did work and furnished materials for repairing a public bridge in Napa county, at the request of the Board of Supervisors of the county, and that the Board promised to pay him for the same; but he neither proved nor attempted to prove a compliance with the Statute of 1860 in awarding the contract: Held, that he was properly nonsuited at the trial.</p> <p>Where the complaint averred a contract between plaintiff and the Board of Supervisors on behalf of the county, and the answer admitted a contract between the plaintiff and another on one side, and the county on the other, and averred that this was the only contract made by the county in relation to the matter, and denied that any other was made by the Board of Supervisors : Held, that this denial was sufficient to put the plaintiff on proof of the contract.</p>