S.F. Gas Co. v. City of San Francisco

6 Cal. 190
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1856·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Chief Justice Murray.

Mr. Justice Terry concurred.

We are at a loss to understand on what ground the Court below based its judgment. The ordinance was a sufficient authority for the original contract, and the confirmation by the Common Council, by joint resolution, was all that was contemplated. Had it been the intention of the Council to require a confirmation by ordinance, they would doubtless so have expressed themselves, in which event, the approval of the Mayor would have been necessary.

[192] It is no bar to the plaintiff’s claim that it was presented to the board of examiners; the rejection only denied him the privilege of funding it, but did not destroy the validity or impair the obligation of his contract, and his right to prosecute it is as ¿.perfect as it ever was.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered.

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

S.F. Gas Co. v. City of San Francisco, 6 Cal. 190 (Cal. 1856).

6 Cal. 190 (S.F. Gas Co. v. City of San Francisco) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Crowe v. Boyle
193 P. 111 (California Supreme Court, 1920)
Steenerson v. Fontaine
119 N.W. 400 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1908)
Smith v. State
68 P. 641 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1902)
Gleason v. Barnett
61 S.W. 20 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1901)
McGavock v. City of Omaha
58 N.W. 543 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1894)
City of Galveston v. Morton
58 Tex. 409 (Texas Supreme Court, 1883)
Martindale v. Palmer
52 Ind. 411 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1876)