TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Glassell v. O'Dea

HUGH GLASSELL and ANDREW GLASSELL, Executors, Etc., Respondents, v. M. F. O'DEA, W. H. WORKMAN, Treasurer of City of Los Angeles Et Al., Defendants; TRYON-BRAIN CO., Appellant

Glassell v. O'Dea, 95 P. 44 (Cal. Ct. App. 1908)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Court of Appeal · State Appellate Courts
Decided
January 28, 1908
Docket
No. Civ. No. 418.
Judges
Taggart
Citations
95 P. 447 Cal. App. 4721908 Cal. App. LEXIS 347
Headnotes
Street Improvement—Void Contract—Street Bond not Enforceable. Where the specifications for a street improvement, upon which the contract therefor is based, provide that all loss or damage arising from the nature of the work to be done under this agreement shall be sustained by the contractor, the contract is void, and a street improvement bond issued upon an assessment for the cost of the street work done under such contract is void, and cannot be enforced.
Summary
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Taggart

TAGGART, J.

This is an action to quiet plaintiffs’ title to a lot in Mock 1, town of Garvanza, in the city of Los Angeles, against the lien of a street improvement bond issued upon an assessment for the cost of street work done under the “Vrooman Act.”

From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs declaring such bond void, the defendant Tryon-Brain Company, the holder of the bond, appeals.

From the resolution of intention to the contract for the street work upon which the bond is based, reference is made in all steps of the proceedings to certain specifications on file in the office of the city clerk. These specifications are the same as those considered by the supreme court in the opinion rendered in Woollacott v. Meekin, 151 Cal. 701 , [ 91 Pac. 612 ], being general specifications Nos. 68, 54, 52, 55 and 51 used by the engineer’s office of the city of Los An *473 geles. The provision therein that “all loss or damage arising from the nature of the work to be done under this agreement, . . . shall be sustained by the contractor,” was held to render void an assessment resting upon such specifications., A

careful consideration of appellant’s brief and the record, here, and of the opinion filed in the Woollacott v. MeeMn case,, leads to the conclusion that there is no question of law left, for the decision of this court.

On the authority of that case, the cases therein cited, and Hatch v. Nevills, 152 Cal. xvi , [ 95 Pac. 43 ], the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Shaw, J., and James, J., pro tem., concurred.

A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court,, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied, by the supreme court on March 26, 1908.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1909: 119092026peak 1909 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Charters v. Stansbury101 P. 418 (Cal. Ct. App. 1909)

Most recent

  1. Charters v. Stansbury101 P. 418 (Cal. Ct. App. 1909)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Woollacott v. Meekin, 91 P. 612 (Cal. 1907) 16
Hatch v. Nevills, 95 P. 43 (Cal. 1907) 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list