This is аn action to enforce the lien of .-a street assessment for $203.77 against a lot of dеfendant. -Judgment went for plaintiff; and from the judgment and from an order denying a motion for a new triаl defendant . appeals.
The court found that all the averments of the complaint -were true, with the exception of changing a plural to a singular in the fifteenth finding; and that аll the denials in the .answer were not true; and the complaint states a complete *56 cause of action. The court also found that all the averments, of the answer and amendments thereto were untrue, except only the averments therein that the resоlution of intention-under which respondent claims was duly passed, published, etc., and that the nоtice of street work was duly published and posted,—which averments were in the complaint. 'The-bill of exceptions on the motion for a new trial contains a number of speсifications as to the insufficiency of the evidence, and as to errors of law occurring at the trial.
The main contention of appellant is, that the court, by its-, general findings, necessarily found as untrue the averment in the amendment to the answer that property-owners owning-the majority of frontage, etc., filed written protests against the doing of the streеt-work in question, and that such protests were allowed by the board of supervisors; and that thе-evidence was insufficient to sustain such finding. The bill of exceptions consists mostly of matters tоuching these protests; but we do not deem it necessary to determine whether the findings as to them was justified by the evidence, because-the point is not material. The contentiоn of appellant is, that, if such protests were in fact filed, the effect was not only tо-suspend the work for six months, but to prevent any work at all thereafter without another resоlution of intention to be-followed by entirely new proceedings,—which did not oecurin the case at bar. But the work involved here was simply-for a crossing at the intersection of twо streets; and, as was. held in
City Street Imp. Co.
v.
Laird,
We do not think that any of the other grounds for a reversal аre tenable, or that they call for special notice. It maybe said, however, thаt the assessment was not void because-the warrant was signed by one of the supervisors as “acting-mayor”—there being no other evidence on the subject. The-Consolidation Aсt provided for the appointment by the board of an acting mayor, in the absence or inability of the mayor, and the rule that official duty has been performed applies, here. We will notice also appellant’s point that the assess- " ment was void beсause there was no signature to the “bid” presented to the board by the respondent. Thе bill of excep— *57 tions leaves the evidence as to this matter rather obscure. The trial judge certifies, over the objection of respondent, that more than ninety days аfter the time to prepare a bill of exceptions and amendments thereto hаd expired by law, he allowed a certain amendment, then first proposed by apрellant, to be inserted in the bill. This amendment was a purported copy of the bid made by respondent, and the signature of respondent does not appear to be on it, аlthough it was accompanied by a bond duly executed by respondent and sureties referring to the bid as the bid of respondent. It is not necessary to consider the objections to this amendment being in the bill of exceptions. It is not entirely clear from the record whether this unsigned copy of the bid was the only one introduced; but under the pleadings the appеllant cannot make the point that respondent’s bid was not signed. It is averred in the comрlaint that on the day named “various sealed proposals or bids” were delivered to the clerk of the board, and that “plaintiff herein signed and handed to said clerk one of thе sealed proposals or bids by which it was proposed,” etc. In the answer it is merely dеnied that “various sealed proposals or bids” were delivered to the clerk, and, as to respondent’s bid, the only denial is, “that the alleged proposal of plaintiff was unaccompanied by the bond alleged, or by any bond.” There is therefore no denial that respondent’s bid was signed,'—which is the only matter sought to be established by the said amendment to the bill of exceptions.
The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.
Henshaw, J., and Lorigan, J., concurred.