Case Name: J. J. BRADY v. F. T. FEISEL
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1878
Citations: 53 Cal. 49
Docket Number: No. 5774
Parties: J. J. BRADY v. F. T. FEISEL
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 53
Pages: 49–50

Head Matter:
[No. 5774.]
J. J. BRADY v. F. T. FEISEL
Street Assessment — Sufficiency of Notice.—The erroneous use of the word “regraded” instead of “graded,” in the notice inviting sealed proposals for the grading of a street, does not vitiate the notice.
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco.
The action was brought to recover a street assessment in San Francisco, under the law as it stood April 26th, 1869. At the trial it appeared that the resolution of intention, order, proposals, award, contract, and assessment were all for grading, and were regular; but in one place in the notice the word “ regrading ” was used by mistake, instead of the word “ grading.”
Judgment was rendered for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.
C. H. Parker, for the Appellant.
The error was merely clerical. The notice inviting sealed proposals was sufficient. The property-owner was the only person interested, and he knew when he read the notice that there was no regrading to be done. .
Jos. M. Nougues, for Respondent.
Grading and regrading are different kinds of work; as much so as grading and capping, or grading and any other kind of work, and they are so considered by the statute, (secs. 3, 4, 5, and subds. 10 and 11, of the Street Law of 1862, Stats. 1862, p. 391; also, secs. 4 and 8 of the Act of 1863, Stats. 1863, p. 525; and sec. 8, as amended in 1867-8, p. 358).

Opinion:
By the Court :
The resolution of intention was to grade the street. The notice inviting sealed proposals was " for grading " the street, and referred to the resolution (No. 9,772). As explanatory, the notice inviting sealed proposals also informed bidders that the street mentioned was to be "regraded." This was nothing more than to say that the street to be graded had once before been graded, and that it had become necessary to do the work over again. We see nothing in this which vitiates the notice for sealed proposals.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded, with directions to render judgment for the plaintiff upon the findings. Remittitur forthwith.