Perine

Perine v. Forbush

Good Law
1893 Cal. LEXIS 537·97 Cal. 305·32 P. 226
Supreme Court of CaliforniaFebruary 15, 1893No. 14867California1,862 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

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 *309 cil shall again advertise for proposals, as in the first instance, and award the contract for said work to the then lowest regular responsible bidder.” This provision of the law is not directory, as claimed by plaintiff. It is true that statutes which fix the time within which official acts are to be performed are often held to be merely directory as to the time so fixed, but such a statute is never so construed when its language indicates the contrary intention; as, for instance, when the statute attaches a consequence to the failure to perform the act within the time limited. “In such a case,” said Mr. Justice Cope, in delivering the opinion of the court in the case of Shaw v. Randall,…

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.