Richardson v. Heydenfeldt
WILLIAM J. RICHARDSON v. SOLOMON HEYDENFELDT
- Area
- civil
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
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 *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.
Cited by
- Pacific Paving Co. v. Verso Civ. No. 242. · 1910-01-03
- Chase v. Scheerer L.A. No. 966. · 1902-04-11
- Reid v. Clay S.F. No. 2251. · 1901-09-27
- Bolton v. Gilleran No. 15397 · 1894-12-26
- Treanor v. Houghton No. 15320 · 1894-06-12
- Boys' & Girls' Aid Society v. Reis No. 9914 · 1887-01-31
- Brady v. King No. 4968 · 1878-07-01
- Himmelmann v. McCreery No. 5182 · 1877-07-01
- People v. Clark No. 3,923 · 1874-07-01
- Randolph v. Gawley No. 3,118 · 1874-07-01
- People v. Ladd No. 4,083 · 1874-07-01