People v. Clark
People v. Clark
Opinion of the Court
The judgment' must be reversed, upon the authority of Richardson v. Heydenfeldt, 46 Cal. 68. The case here is not distinguishable from that case. The notice of intention upon the part of the Board is not set forth in the complaint, but the plaintiff cannot claim a judgment in his favor except upon the presumption that such a notice, containing a proper designation of the work to be done, was given, and further presumption that the contract, as afterward awarded, substantially conformed to the description of the proposed work, as given in the notice." It appearing by the allegations of the complaint that the contract, as awarded, was for furnishing and laying new cross-walks where necessary; and repairing the street where necessary, it must be presumed that the notice of intention was fatally defective in the respect indicated.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial. Remittitur forthwith.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- THE PEOPLE Of THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO v. WILLIAM S. CLARK
- Cited By
- 3 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Becoveby oe Assessment dob Impbovino a Stbeet.—The plaintiff, in an action to recover an assessment for improving á street in San Francisco, cannot recover, except upon the presumption that a notice of intention to improve, containing a proper designation of the work to be done, was given, and that the contracts afterward awarded, substantially conformed to the description of the proposed work as given in the notice. Idem.—When such notice is not set forth in the complaint, and a contract is set forth, it will he presumed that the contract given, conformed in its description of the work to the description in the notice, and if the description in the contract is for work on the street designated “where necessary,” the complaint is fatally defective. Stbeet Impbovement in San Feanoisco.-—The Board of Supervisors of San Francisco, cannot delegate the power to determine where work is necessary on' a street.