Himmelmann v. Cahn
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Twelfth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. On the 3d day of August, 1868, the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco resolved to grade Jackson street from Polk street to Van Ness avenue. Such proceedings were had that a contract was entered into with John Hammill, and he performed the work. He assigned his demand to Himmelmann.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Twelfth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. On the 3d day of August, 1868, the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco resolved to grade Jackson street from Polk street to Van Ness avenue. Such proceedings were had that a contract was entered into with John Hammill, and he performed the work. He assigned his demand to Himmelmann. This action was brought to enforce liens for an assessment on a lot to pay the expense of grading Jackson street, and also an assessment made about the same time for macadamizing the crossing of…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, McKinstry, J.:
We think the judgment should be affirmed. The statute requires that the notice inviting sealed proposals should be conspicuously posted in the office of the Superintendent of Public Streets and Highways for five days. We think this requires that the notice should remain posted in that office for five official days. In other words, it must be posted *288before the commencement of the first day; that is, before 9 o’clock A. m., when, by statute, the office is to be opened, and remain posted during the whole of the first, second, third, fourth, and until 4 o’clock p. m.…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Ferri v. City of Long BeachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- Haughawout v. PercivalCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
- Greenwood v. HassettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900