Richardson v. Heydenfeldt

46 Cal. 68
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1873·No. No. 3,722·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

By the Court:

The description of the work to be performed is “constructing sidewalks on Broadway street from the westerly line of Van Ness Avenue to the easterly line of Octavia [70]*70street, where necessary. ” It is indispensable that the work to be done should be determined by the judgment of the Board, and neither the judgment of the Superintendent nor that of any other person can be substituted. The case, in this respect, is plainly distinguishable from a resolution of intention to order work to be done “except where done.”

Judgment affirmed.

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

Richardson v. Heydenfeldt, 46 Cal. 68 (Cal. 1873).

46 Cal. 68 (Richardson v. Heydenfeldt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pacific Paving Co. v. Verso
107 P. 590 (California Court of Appeal, 1910)
Hildreth v. City of Longmont
47 Colo. 79 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1909)
Chase v. Scheerer
68 P. 768 (California Supreme Court, 1902)
Reid v. Clay
66 P. 262 (California Supreme Court, 1901)
Bolton v. Gilleran
38 P. 881 (California Supreme Court, 1894)
Treanor v. Houghton
36 P. 1081 (California Supreme Court, 1894)
Boys' & Girls' Aid Society v. Reis
12 P. 796 (California Supreme Court, 1887)
Tappan v. Young
9 Daly 357 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1880)
Brady v. King
53 Cal. 44 (California Supreme Court, 1878)
Himmelmann v. McCreery
51 Cal. 562 (California Supreme Court, 1877)
People v. Clark
47 Cal. 456 (California Supreme Court, 1874)
Randolph v. Gawley
47 Cal. 458 (California Supreme Court, 1874)
People v. Ladd
47 Cal. 603 (California Supreme Court, 1874)