Dahl

City of Stockton v. Dahl

Good Law
2 Cal. Unrep. 337·4 P. 369
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 18, 1884No. 8506California709 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

1. A general demurrer that the complaint, as amended, does not state facts to constitute a cause of action was overruled by the court below, and, after trial, judgment was ordered and entered for defendant. Respondent now contends that the judgment should be affirmed, because the demurrer ought to have been sustained, for certain reasons:

First. As against a general demurrer, at least, the averment in the complaint, “Market street, in said city, .... was, on or about the first day of January, 1879, and ever since has been an open public street used as such, and dedicated to the public use in said city of Stockton, in the county of San Joaquin, state of California,” is a sufficient averment that the street named is in the city of Stockton.

Second. The complaint alleges that the resolution of intention was published as required by the city council.

*338 Third. If the notice soliciting bids was actually published, it is unimportant that a portion of a resolution of the council directed the street committee to solicit bids.

The charter does not require, when an order is made that work be done, the council shall in terms direct the clerk to advertise for bids, or that the contents…

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.