Opinion

County of Sacramento v. Southern Pacific Co.

  • 127 Cal. 217
  • 59 P. 568
  • 1899 Cal. LEXIS 628
Court
California Supreme Court
Filed
Dec 19, 1899
Status
Published
Author
Beatty
On the bench
Beatty, Garoutte
Cited by
27 cases
Authority
More cited than 44.0%

The opinion

BEATTY, C. J.

I dissent from the order denying a rehearing of this case because, in my opinion, the decision rests necessarily upon a doctrine destructive of essential safeguards of important public rights. The essence of the decision is that a contract, void for want of compliance with the'conditions and limitations upon and under which alone boards of supervisors have power to bind their counties, acquires all the force and obligation of a valid contract if the contractor commences work and expends money in pursuance of its terms before he is notified that the county repudiates it. This doctrine sweeps away at once all limitations upon the power of the board, for it can readily be seen that the contractor must always have it in his power to commence work just as soon as he has induced the board to enter into a contract in defiance of the regulations intended to govern their action; and it is also apparent, that the board which desires to make contracts in disregard of the law will have the sanie motive to allow the commencement of work that they have to enter into the illegal contract.

And how can the equitable doctrine of estoppel apply in such a case against the public? The facts are all known to the contractor. There has been no misrepresentation, no concealment. He knows what the contract is and how it has been obtained. If it is illegal and void he knows it, and if he goes to work under

*226

it he does so with his eyes open. In such case there can be no •estoppel.

The expression quoted in the Department opinion from

Argenti v. San Francisco, 16

Cal.

266,

was never the law even •of that case. It was but the opinion of a single judge, not concurred in by his associates and expressly repudiated by him in the later case of

Zottman v. San Francisco, 20

Cal. 109, 81 Am. Dec. 96 , where he lays down the doctrine which this case sets aside. It is true that some decisions have been made in other jurisdictions which sustain the present ruling here, but it is certainly opposed to the views which have heretofore prevailed in this court, and to the weight of authority elsewhere.

The judgment of the superior court should have been affirmed.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.