Frick

Frick v. City of Los Angeles

Good Law
115 Cal. 512·1896 Cal. LEXIS 1039·47 P. 250
Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 31, 1896L. A. No. 135California936 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Britt, J.

Plaintiffs claim damages in this action for the alleged prevention of performance, on their part, of the stipulations contained in a certain paper writing, which they say is a contract between themselves and the defendant for the construction-of a public sewer. It is declared by section 207 of the city charter (printed with Stats. 1889, p. 506) that “ the city of Los Angeles shall not be, and is not, bound by any contract, or in any way liable thereon, unless the same is made in writing by order of the council, the draft thereof approved by the council, and the same ordered to be, and be, signed by the mayor or some other person authorized thereto, in behalf of the city.” It is not in terms alleged in the complaint that the city entered into a contract with plaintiffs expressed by said paper writing, but the pleader set forth the proceedings taken by the parties looking to the creation of such a contract. It thus appears that plaintiffs signed the instrument, and that, the council, in which is vested the legislative power of the city, took the several steps required of it by the above-quoted portion of said section 207 in order to impart validity to such instrument as a municipal…

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.