Legal Opinion

Frick v. Morford

California Supreme Court

Decided February 2, 1891No. 13659PublishedCited by 8 opinions

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County denying a petition for a writ of mandate. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtHarrison, J.

The plaintiffs applied to the superior court of Los Angeles County for a writ of mandate to the superintendent of streets of the city of Los Angeles, directing him to make an assessment for certain work done by them in laying a sewer in Seventh Street, under a contract "with the city authorities. In their application they aver that they entered into a contract with the superintendent of streets, by which they agreed to lay *578the sewer “in accordance with plans and specifications therefor on file in the office of the city surveyor, . . . . but said plans and specifications were'faulty and…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Himmelmann v. HoadleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
  2. Boyle v. HitchcockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
  3. Smith v. CofranCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Chase v. City Treasurer of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  2. McLaughlin v. KnoblochCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
  3. Perine v. ForbushCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  4. Smith v. LightstonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  5. Dowling v. ConniffCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API