City of Stockton v. Creanor
Synopsis
Bid fob Grading a Street in a Citx.—If an ordinance of a city, providing for grading a street containing several Mocks, requires that bidders shall bid on each block separately, a bid to grade the entire street at so much per cubic yard is an error which enables a lot owner to defeat the collection of an assessment.
Bids and Contracts for Grading Streets. — If the charter of a city authorizes the Council to cause the streets to be graded and to let contracts for that purpose, and provides that the Council may reject all bids, a committee of the Council cannot accept a bid or award a contract to grade a street.
Defense in Action to Kecovbb Stbebt Assessment.—In an action to recover an assessment levied on a lot for grading a street in a city, the lot owner may show and rely on as a defense any substantial error in the proceedings which could not have been remedied by an appeal to the Council.
Idem.—A provision in a city charter which declares that the delinquent tax list on an assessment for grading a street shall be evidence to prove “that all the forms of law in relation to the levy and assessment had been complied with” does not make it conclusive evidence, but the lot owner may go behind the same and show a substantial error in the proceedings.
By the Court: The bid sent in by Myers was a bid for the entire work, and not for separate blocks, as required by the ordinance. Eo express contract was entered into between the city and Myers, but the Street Committee accepted his bid for the grading of the street along eight out of the nine blocks mentioned in the ordinance. The city charter authorizes the Common Council to cause the streets to be graded, and for that purpose to let contracts, etc. But this authority is not conferred upon a committee of the Common Council, either by the charter or by ordinance. Even if it be conceded that such authority may be delegated by the Common Council, the provision of the charter that the Common Council may reject all bids, prohibits by implication the exercise by a committee of the power to accept a bid and award a contract. We are of the opinion that the bid must be accepted, and the contract awarded by the Common Council.
[647]These irregularities in respect to the bid and the award of the contract are not cured by the provisions of section fifty-five of the Act of 1870, to incorporate the City of Stockton (Stats. 1869-70, p. 608); for the decision of the Board of Equalization is final and conclusive only in respect to “ all errors and irregularities which said Board could have remedied and avoided” on an appeal to the Board, as in that section provided. The Board could not then correct either of those irregularities. Nor are they corrected by the provisions of section forty of that Act,'respecting the delinquent list; for that section provides that such list shall be evidence of the matters therein recited; but as it is not declared to be conclusive evidence of those matters, it does not preclude the lot owner from showing and relying, upon a substantial error or irregularity in the prior proceedings.
Judgment affirmed. •
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)