Chambers

— The action is to collect a street assessment, and the defenses set up in the answer are, first, that the publication, in the “Chronicle” of the resolution of the intention of the board to cause the work to be done was insufficient ; second, that the notice of the award of the contract was published for only two days, instead of three, as required by the statute. A demurrer to the answer having been sustained and a final judgment entered for the plaintiffs, the defendant appeals.

The publication in the “Chronicle” was sufficient: Richardson v. Tobin, 45 Cal. 30 . But the statute does not provide who shall cause the notice of the award of the contract to be published. It only requires that “notice of such award shall be published for three days (Sundays and non judicial days excepted),” but does not indicate whether this duty is to devolve on the board of supervisors or the superintendent of streets.

In Donnelly v. Tillman [ 47 Cal. 40 ] and Donnelly v. Marks [ 47 Cal. 187 ], decided at the October term, 1873, we held it to be incumbent on the board of supervisors to publish the notice of the award, and in Hewes v. Reis, 40 Cal. 264 , we decided that for omissions by the board…