Federal Construction Co. v. Kneese
Before: Beasly
Synopsis
APPLICATION for a Writ of Mandamus originally made to the District Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District to compel a superintendent of streets to sign a contract for street improvement.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
BEASLY, J.,
pro tem.
The Federal Construction Company petitions for a writ of mandate to compel the superintendent of streets of Daly City to sign a contract for the improvement of certain streets of that municipality pursuant to proceedings taken by its board of trustees-under the Improvement Act of 1911 (Stats. 1911, p. 730), in conjunction with the act amendatory thereof of 1915 (Stats. 1915, p. 1464).
The case is an amicable one instituted for the purpose of determining the validity of the proceeding involved to the point which they have reached.
The first objection to the proceedings is that the streets involved are not mentioned by their official names in the resolution of intention. It is provided in section 3 of the Improvement Act of 1911 (Stats. 1911, p. 733) that the streets to be improved may be referred to by the names by which they are commonly known, and this was done.
The next objection is that the resolution of intention is uncertain in some particulars. The plans, however, which accompanied the resolution of intention, and the specifications that are referred to therein, if we understand counsel correctly, answer these objections by making the lines, which it might be impossible- to locate, if the resolution of intention stood alone, quite certain as to location.
Another, objection to the resolution is that it cannot be determined therefrom whether a certain strip of vitrified
[661]
brick pavement excepted from the work to be done is in existence or to be hereafter constructed. It is plainly said in the resolution that this pavement is “to be constructed." This can only mean that it is to be constructed in the future, of course.
Other criticisms are aimed at the resolution and plans and specifications; but with all respect to counsel, who have so ably presented this matter as to lighten the labor of the court, we think them inconsequential.
The, reference in the resolution of intention embraces matters concerning which the resolution may properly refer to the plans and specifications for a more particular description of the work; and the reference itself is sufficient for this purpose.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)