Workman

This action was brought to enjoin the city treasurer from selling certain premises by reason of default in the payment of bonds theretofore issued on account of street improvements, and to quiet title to such premises.

It is stipulated that all of the proceedings leading up to the award of the contract for the work of the street improvement were regular and in conformity to the law, the only part of the proceedings questioned being as to the validity of the con tract under which the work was done, and that infirmity is claimed to exist only by reason of the fact that the award of contract was first published April 13, 1906, and the contract was not entered into until July 13, 1906. Section 5 of the act under which the street improvement was ordered [Stats. 1885, p. 149] provides that the owners of a majority of the frontage may, within ten days after posting notice of award of the contract, elect to take said work and enter into a contract, etc. Should such owners fail to so elect, it is the duty of the street superintendent to enter into a contract with the original bidder, but if the original bidder fails or refuses for fifteen days after the first publication of notice of…