Nicolson Pavement Co. v. Fay
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Fourth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. Judgment passed for the plaintiff in the Court below, and the defendant appealed. The other facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Court.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Sanderson, J.:
The only difference between this case and that of the plaintiff against Painter, decided at the present term, (post,) lies in the fact that in addition to the cause of action for putting down Nieolson pavement, the complaint contains also a cause of action for other work for which the Board of Supervisors had the power to contract. So far as the cause of action in relation to Nicolson pavement is concerned, the judgment will have to he reversed upon the authority of Painter’s Case.
The case shows that the work was all let as one job, upon one bid, and under one…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Beaudry v. ValdezCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
3Cited by1 opinion
- Dunne v. AltschulCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881