Harris v. Cooley (1915) · DecisionDepot

Harris v. Cooley

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Oct 5, 1915 No. L. A. No. 4096.Published

Before: Lorigan

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the Act of 1871-72, which regulated the erection of public buildings, was superseded by subsequent, comprehensive legislation in the Political Code regarding the construction of school buildings. Consequently, a contract for school construction is not void for failure to comply with the superseded 1871-72 Act.

Issues

Whether the Act of 1871-72 regarding the erection of public buildings remains in effect for the construction of school buildings.
Whether the provisions of the Political Code regarding school building construction constitute a complete scheme that supersedes the Act of 1871-72.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the legislature having made a new and complete expression of its will upon the subject this last expression must prevail and whatever is excluded therefrom must be ignored.”

Synopsis

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

LORIGAN, J.

The plaintiff appeals from a judgment of nonsuit entered in a proceeding brought by him for a peremptory writ of mandate against defendant as superintendent of schools of Imperial County to require him in his official capacity as such superintendent to approve a warrant issued to the plaintiff by the board of trustees of the Central Union High School District of Imperial County. The warrant was for

[145]

$1997.35, being a balance alleged to be due the plaintiff from said high school district upon a contract made in 1912, whereby the said school district agreed to pay plaintiff the sum of five per cent upon the cost of erection of a school building in the district for his services as architect in draiving the plans and specifications therefor and superintending the construction of the building.

There was no substantial conflict in the evidence in the case. The refusal of respondent to approve the warrant was based on the ground, which was a fact conceded on the trial, that the board of school trustees of the district in entering into the contract with plaintiff had failed to comply with the provisions of an act of the legislature entitled, “An act to regulate the erection of public buildings and structures.” (Stats. 1871-72, p. 925.)

There is no designation in this act of particular public buildings to the erection of which its provisions should apply. It does not refer particularly to school buildings. It is broad in its terms and contemplates all public buildings of every character and its provisions apply to all. We shall quote the first section in full and for the sake of brevity epitomize the others.

Section 1 provides: “When by any statute of this state power is given to any state or county officer or officers or to any board of supervisors or corporation, or any board of trustees or commissioners, or other person or persons created or appointed by authority of any such statute, to erect, or cause to be erected or constructed, any state or county or other building or structure, it shall be the duty of said officer or officers, board of supervisors, corporation, or board of trustees, or commissioners, or other person or persons to advertise for plans and specifications in detail for said building or other structure, and to state in said advertisement the amount authorized by law or otherwise to be expended for the erection of said building or structure; and also the premium to be awarded to the architect whose plans and specifications for the same may be adopted.”

Related research

was the best and most satisfactory building which could be built for the money authorized to be expended. These provisions of the act contemplating this sole purpose could, of course, have no application under the enactments of the code respecting the building of schoolhouses, because these code provisions now cast upon school boards the mandatory duty of letting contracts to the lowest bidders for the construction thereof, and to that extent it cannot be questioned but that the code enactments have had the effect of superseding these provisions of the act. But it is said by respondent if it be conceded that these particular provisions of the act as to letting the contract for construction to the architect whose plans and specifications are adopted can no longer apply, still that section 1 of the act may still stand as controlling the action of school trustees respecting plans for school buildings; that while the other sections of the act may have been repealed or superseded by the code enactments providing for competitive bidding in the erection' of school buildings, nevertheless the requirements of said section 1 may be severed from them and stand unaffected. Under this contention it is claimed that by the provisions of section 1 of the act boards of school trustees are still required, notwithstanding the contract for the building of schoolhouses must be let to the lowest bidder, to advertise for competitive plans therefor. But we do not think that section 1 of the act can be treated as severable from its other provisions. Nor did the legislature contemplate that it should be. The act was intended to provide a complete scheme for the erection of all public buildings. It was not contemplated that these plans should be obtained for any other reason or purpose than to make the successfully competing architect become the contractor for the erection of the building. The securing of plans was solely for that purpose. But this can no longer be accomplished under the act so far as school buildings are concerned. The code provisions requiring the school trustees to call for bids for constructing school buildings and to let the contract to the lowest bidder are inconsistent with the provisions of the act and this, in addition to vesting the whole power of approving or rejecting plans for school buildings in the hands of the county superintendent, provides a new and complete scheme under which such buildings are to be erected, which is inconsistent with the provisions and pur

AI Brief

Synopsis

LORIGAN, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief