Case Name: CITY OF STOCKTON v. ASA CLARK
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1878
Citations: 53 Cal. 82
Docket Number: No. 6033
Parties: CITY OF STOCKTON v. ASA CLARK.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 53
Pages: 82–83

Head Matter:
[No. 6033.]
CITY OF STOCKTON v. ASA CLARK.
Street Assessment in Stockton.—Under the Act of March 27th, 1872, “ to reincorporate the City of Stockton,” notices inviting sealed proposals to do street work must refer to a diagram and specifications of the proposed work.
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, County of San Joaquin.
The action was brought to recover a street assessment in the City of Stockton, levied under the Act of March 27th, 1872, an act to reincorporate the City of Stockton. (Stats. 1871-2, p. 606.) The notice inviting sealed proposals was as follows:
“ Notice to Contractors.—Sealed proposals for, the performance of the foregoing street work will be received up to one o’clock p. m. of Monday, July 1st, 1873, at the office of the City Clerk of the City of Stockton, by the Street Committee of the Council of said City, at which time and place such bids as may be received will be opened and considered, and the contract awarded to the lowest and best bidder; the work is to be completed on or before the 8th day of August next, and is to be done under the direction of the Street Commissioner, and to be subject to the approval of the Street Committee. Suitable bonds, to be approved by the Committee, for the faithful performance of the contract, will be required. The Committee reserve the right of rejecting any or all bids deemed too high.
“ (Signed) H. Littebraxt,
“ Chairman of Street Committee.
“ Attest: H. T. Comptox, City Clerk.
“ Stockton, June 20th, 1873.”
Judgment was rendered for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.
James A. Louttit, for Appellant.
W. L. Dudley, for Respondent.

Opinion:
By the Court :
The notice inviting sealed proposals did not refer to a diagram and specifications of the proposed work, as required by the twenty-seventh section of the Act of March 27th, 1872, to reincorporate the City of Stockton, and for that reason the proceedings are invalid, and the defendant's property did not become liable for the assessment.
Judgment affirmed. Remittitur forthwith.