Case ID: njl_90/html/0689-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JAMES M. HOUGHTON ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF JERSEY CITY ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
    Argued March 21, 1917
    Decided June 18, 1917.
    On, appeal from the Supreme Court, in which court the following memorandum was filed by Mr. Justice Swayze:
    
      “Per curiam: The prosecutors are taxpayers of Jersey City and seek to set aside a contract with Thomas Harrington Sons Company for the removal of garbage. The chief complaint is that the specifications, are so drawn as, to leave too much to the discretion of the city officers in the enforcement of the contract and to give them too much power for the enforcement of the Eight-Hour Work-Hay law. Assuming this to be so, we are unable to see how taxpayers are injured thereby in the absence of proof that prospective bidders were deterred from bidding by the supposed looseness of the specifications. All bidders had the same opportunity to hid on the same specifications, and there seem to' have been as many bidders as there was any reason to expect. It is also objected that the successful bid was for five years, and that of the total bid the payment for the balance of the then current fiscal year was less in proportion than the payments for succeeding years, and was just below the amount of ihe appropriation available for the current year. The bid itself was a lump bid for the five years; the amount payable varied with the years, increasing as time went on. As the contract was an entire contract for (he five years, and Thomas Harrington Sons Company were the lowest bidder, we do not see, in the absence of proof, that the prosecutors, -were injured because the bidder chose to postpone in part the times of payment. The postponement would seem to be to the advantage of the taxpayers in the saving of interest.
    “Let the writ be dismissed, with costs.”
    
      For the appellants, Richard Doherty.
    
    For the respondents, Collins & Corbin and John Bunting.
    
   Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Swayze in the Supreme Court.

For affirmance—The Chancellor, Garrison, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisci-i, Black, White, Williams, Taylor, Gardner, JJ. 10.

For reversal—None.