Perine v. Forbush
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtDe Haven, J.
This action is upon a street assessment, and it appears from the complaint that the contract which is the foundation of the assessment was not entered into within fifteen days after the first posting of the notice of its award to plaintiff. Section 5 of the act of March 18, 1885 (Stats. 1885, p. 147), contains the following: “ But if said original bidder neglects, fails, or refuses for fifteen days after the first posting of notice of the award to enter into the contract, then the city conn*309cil shall again advertise for proposals, as in the first instance, and award the contract for said work…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Himmelman v. DanosCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
- Brock v. LuningCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- McBean v. RedickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Fanning v. LevistonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Himmelmann v. HoadleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Whitley v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Thomas v. DriscollCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
- Bradley Co. v. RidgewayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
- Chase v. City Treasurer of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Partridge v. LucasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.