Hall v. County of Los Angeles

California Supreme Court

Hall v. County of Los Angeles

13 P. 854, 2 Cal. Unrep. 754, 1887 Cal. LEXIS 849

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedMay 18, 1887

DocketNo. 11,833

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 13 P. 854 (Hall v. County of Los Angeles) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hall v. County of Los Angeles, 13 P. 854, 2 Cal. Unrep. 754, 1887 Cal. LEXIS 849 (Cal. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

FOOTE, C.

The demurrer to the complaint was properly sustained. The plaintiff had no claim against the defendant, the county of Los Angeles, according to his own pleading, save and except one based upon the condition that the board of supervisors of that county should accept the bid of some “reliable party” for the building of a jail. They refused, in the exercise of a proper discretion, as the complaint shows, to open or accept any of the bids tendered, on the ground that the plaintiff had been a party to certain improper acts in getting his plans conditionally accepted. Thus the condition upon which alone he had, or could have had, any claim for compensation for his alleged services never happened, not because of any fault of the board of supervisors, but for the reason that they, in the exercise of a rightful discretion, refused to entertain or accept bids which they believed were based upon plans tainted with fraud, with which the plaintiff appeared to them to be in collusion. As guardians of the best interests of their county, they could not have properly acted otherwise, and the judgment should be affirmed.

We concur: Belcher, C. C.; Hayne, G.

By the COURT.—For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

FOOTE, C.

The demurrer to the complaint was properly sustained. The plaintiff had no claim against the defendant, the county of Los Angeles, according to his own pleading, save and except one based upon the condition that the board of supervisors of that county should accept the bid of some “reliable party” for the building of a jail. They refused, in the exercise of a proper discretion, as the complaint shows, to open or accept any of the bids tendered, on the ground that the plaintiff had been a party to certain improper acts in getting his plans conditionally accepted. Thus the condition upon which alone he had, or could have had, any claim for compensation for his alleged services never happened, not because of any fault of the board of supervisors, but for the reason that they, in the exercise of a rightful discretion, refused to entertain or accept bids which they believed were based upon plans tainted with fraud, with which the plaintiff appeared to them to be in collusion. As guardians of the best interests of their county, they could not have properly acted otherwise, and the judgment should be affirmed.

We concur: Belcher, C. C.; Hayne, G.

By the COURT.—For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 P. 854, 2 Cal. Unrep. 754, 1887 Cal. LEXIS 849, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-county-of-los-angeles-cal-1887.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack