Van Loenen v. Gillespie

THE COURT.

It is ordered that the opinion heretofore rendered by this court in Department Two in this case is adopted as the opinion by the court in Bank, and judgment affirmed accordingly.

Shaw, J., and Lorigan, J., dissented for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in

Woollacott

v.

Meekins,

151 Cal. 701, heretofore denied by the court in Bank:—

The following is the opinion of Department Two, rendered on the fourth day of April, 1907, and adopted by the court in Bank:—

HENSHAW, J.

In this action brought by plaintiffs to set aside assessments on their property made by the street super

[223]

intendent in proceedings under the street law, plaintiffs had judgment and defendants appeal.

Certain ordinances of the city of Los Angeles became incorporated as “Specifications” in the proposed work, in conformity with which specifications bids were ordered and the contract let. In particular, these specifications contained the following:

“All loss or damage arising from the nature of the work to he done under this agreement,

or from any unforeseen obstruction or difficulties which may be encountered in the prosecution of the same, or from the action of the elements, or from any encumbrances on the lines of the work, or from any act or omission upon the part of the contractor, or any person or agent employed by him, not authorized by this agreement,