86 So. 724 | La. | 1920
Defendant appeals from a judgment condemning him to pay -his pro rata share of the cost of the paving and •curbing of sidewalks in the city of Lafayette. He pleads four defenses to the suit, viz.:
(1) That the ordinance calling for bids for the paving and curbing of the sidewalks was published in only one newspaper in the city of Lafayette, notwithstanding there were three newspapers published in that city.
<(2) That he is charged a proportionate share of the cost not only of the paving and curbing but also of the drains or gutters that were constructed at the outer, edge of the sidewalk.
(3) That he is charged for the exact cost of the work that was done in front of his property line, instead of being charged such sum as bears the same proportion to the total cost as the measurement of his property line bears to the total linear measurement of pavement that was done.
(4) That he is charged for the cost of the pavement, curbing, and drain or gutter at the street corner, or square of pavement formed by the intersection of the property lines at the crossing of two streets.
Defendant’s first complaint refers to a provision in the second section of the statute, which requires that 10 days’ notice of the ordinance calling for bids for the work “shall be given in newspapers published in the city or town.” In this instance, the ordinance calling for bids for the work was published only in the official journal of the city, notwithstanding there were two other newspapers published in the city. It is not disputed that the ordinance was published in every issue of the official journal during a period exceeding 10 days before the bids were opened or the contract let. Defendant’s only complaint, in that respect, is that the ordi-' nance or notice thereof should have been published in at least two of- the newspapers
Our conclusion is that the judgment appealed from is correct.
The judgment is affirmed, at the cost of appellant.