Splivalo

Splivalo v. Bryan

Good Law
102 Cal. 403·36 P. 780
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMay 3, 1894No. 15505California472 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Vanclief, J.

This was an application to the superior court of the county of San Mateo for a writ of mandate to the members of the board of supervisors of that county, commanding them “ to advertise for bids for the sprinkling of the roads in the second road district,” in that county. An alternate writ was issued on the affidavit of plaintiff. The defendant, by answer, showed cause why a peremptory writ should not be granted. The cause was submitted for judgment on the affidavit of the plaintiff and the answer of the defendants thereto, it being admitted that both were true. A peremptory writ was denied, and plaintiff brings this appeal from the judgment.

The material facts disclosed by the affidavit of plaintiff are substantially as follows: That the board of supervisors, through one of its members, William B. Lawrence, “employed one John Rowell to sprinkle the roads in the said second road district, at four dollars and fifty cents per day,” without having advertised for bids to do said work; that petitioner and residents of said road district, *404 being taxpayers of said county, demanded of said board, at a regular meeting of the same, that the contract for the sprinkling of said roads…

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.