Haughawout

Haughawout v. Percival

Good Law
161 Cal. 491·1911 Cal. LEXIS 454·119 P. 649
Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 6, 1911L.A. No. 2768.California1,473 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Sloss, J.

The defendant appeals from a judgment foreclosing the lien of a street assessment for sewer work done in the city of Los Angeles. The proceedings were had under the Vrooman Act. (Stats. 1885, p. 147.) Section 3 of that act, as amended in 1891 (Stats. 1891, p. 196), provides that the resolution of intention passed by the city council shall be “posted conspicuously for two days on or near the chamber door of said council.” Section 5 requires that the notice inviting sealed proposals shall be “posted conspicuously for five days on or near the council chamber door of said council,” and that notice of award of contract shall be posted in the same manner. (Stats. 1891, pp. 199, 200.) The complaint alleged a posting of the various documents for the required time “conspicuously near the chamber door of the council.” The answer denied such posting. The finding was in favor of the plaintiff. The appellant attacks this finding as unsupported, and the only question argued is whether the court was justified in determining that the various postings were made near the council chamber door.

The case was submitted on a stipulation of facts, which described with particularity the place where the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.