Weed

Weed v. Maynard

Good Law
2 Cal. Unrep. 34
Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 12, 1876No. 5401California1,077 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

The power of the board of supervisors to cleanse the streets of the city of San Francisco is subject to legislative control, both as to the extent of the work to be done and the mode in which the power is to be exercised.

Assuming in favor of the appellant that no legislative restraint upon either the power or the mode had been imposed prior to the passage of the act of April 3, 1876 (page 795), it is obvious that the purpose of the act was to regulate both the power and the mode. Theretofore the extent of work to be done and the agency through which it was to be accomplished were committed entirely to the judgment of the board. But in the act referred to it is provided that the streets of the city are to be kept clean “in the following manner”: The force to be employed in the work (except so far as it may be recruited from the House of Correction) is not to exceed twenty horses and carts with drivers, and twenty-five additional men as scrapers and sweepers, from the 1st of October to the 1st of April in each year, and for balance of the year fifteen horses and carts with drivers, and twenty additional men as scrapers and sweepers. By the second section of the act the work is to…

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.