History
  • No items yet
midpage
Himmelmann v. Satterlee
49 Cal. 387
Cal.
1874
Check Treatment
By the Court, Rhodes, J.:

It is alleged in the complaint that the Board of Supervisors caused due notice of the award of the contract to be. published, etc., for the requisite period. It was proved that the Board never passed any ordinance or resolution directing the publication of the resolution of award; but that the Clerk of the Board published it without being authorized or directed so to do.

It was held in Donnelly v. Tillman (47 Cal. 40), that it was the duty of the Board of Supervisors to order the notice of the award of the contract to be published; and that the publication was not legal or sufficient unless made in pursance of an order of the Board. That case has repeatedly been affirmed in this Court.

Judgment and order reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial. Remittitur forthwith.

Mr. Justice Niles did not express an opinion.

Case Details

Case Name: Himmelmann v. Satterlee
Court Name: California Supreme Court
Date Published: Jul 1, 1874
Citation: 49 Cal. 387
Docket Number: No. 3,960
Court Abbreviation: Cal.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.