Brooks v. Satterlee (1874) · DecisionDepot

Brooks v. Satterlee

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

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1874 No. No. 3,896Published

Before: Niles

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a notice inviting sealed proposals for public street work was invalid because it failed to provide the full five-day posting period required by statute.

Issues

Whether the notice for sealed proposals satisfied the statutory five-day posting requirement.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“this was not a posting for the full period of five days, as required by law.”

Synopsis

Proposals for Improving a Street.—A notice inviting sealed proposals for taking a contract for improving a public street, in San Francisco, must be posted in the office of the Superintendent of Public Streets five days, and must be posted before 9 o’clock A. at. of the first day, and remain till after 4 o’clock p. at. of the fifth day.

By the Court, Niles, J.: The notice inviting sealed proposals was posted on the 4th of August, 1868, and after the opening of the office of the Superintendent of Public Streets on that day, and contained the announcement that no bids would be received after August 8, 1858, at 4 o’clock p. m. In accordance with our construction of the statute in Himmelmann v. Cahn, ante p. 285, this was not a posting for the full period of five days, as required by law.

Judgment affirmed.

Mr. Justice Rhodes dissented.

Brooks v. Satterlee

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief