Riehl v. City of San Jose
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. The action of the council in letting the contract to the new company, which put in a higher bid than the old one, justifies the court, as a court of equity, in setting aside the contract.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. The action of the council in letting the contract to the new company, which put in a higher bid than the old one, justifies the court, as a court of equity, in setting aside the contract. (In re Anderson, 109 N. Y. 554; Nelson v. Mayor etc., 131 N. Y. 4; Cook v. City of Racine, 2 Wis. 456; McCord v. Pike, 121 111. 288.) The city council was not bound to advertise for bids. (See City Charter of San Jose; Pol. Code, sec. 4412.) In the…
1Opinion of the Court
Gaboutte, J.—
This is an action brought by the plaintiff, a citizen and taxpayer of San Jose, and also the president of the San Jose Light and Power Company, against the city of San Jose, its mayor and common council, and the Electric Improvement Company of San Jose, to set aside a contract entered into between the city through its said mayor and common council and the said Electric Improvement Company of San Jose for the lighting of the streets with arc electric lights for a period of five years from and after October 1, 1890.
Judgment went for the respondents, and this appeal is from the…
2Cited by6 opinions
- McBean v. City of FresnoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Doland v. ClarkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Bunker v. City of HutchinsonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1906
- Price v. City of FargoNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1913
- Case-Bros. Co. v. City of OttawaSupreme Court of Kansas · 1979
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.