Himmelmann v. Cahn

49 Cal. 285
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1874
DocketNo. 3,769
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 49 Cal. 285 (Himmelmann v. Cahn) 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
Himmelmann v. Cahn, 49 Cal. 285 (Cal. 1874).

Opinions

By the Court, McKinstry, J.:

We think the judgment should be affirmed. The statute requires that the notice inviting sealed proposals should be conspicuously posted in the office of the Superintendent of Public Streets and Highways for five days. We think this requires that the notice should remain posted in that office for five official days. In other words, it must be posted [288]*288before the commencement of the first day; that is, before 9 o’clock A. m., when, by statute, the office is to be opened, and remain posted during the whole of the first, second, third, fourth, and until 4 o’clock p. m. of the fifth day, at which hour the statute authorizes the office to be closed.

The assessment mentioned in the second count contains no description of the property.

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

Related

Ferri v. City of Long Beach
169 P. 385 (California Supreme Court, 1917)
Haughawout v. Percival
119 P. 649 (California Supreme Court, 1911)
Greenwood v. Hassett
61 P. 173 (California Supreme Court, 1900)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
49 Cal. 285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/himmelmann-v-cahn-cal-1874.