New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-11-30
la " LNI,E'LLIGE'NCE.
IMPORTANT TO TAXPAYERS.

SUPERIOR COURT GrsEs.L Tsss-Nov 2a-B<oss
jane, B. Brady rspoDd.It sr The Mayor &C. Of the City
II New.foIk, appel ants
This action was brought To recover the sum OF
81 1856 Ia balance alleged TO be due to the respond
ent upon contract executed by the Street Commits
sioner on the part Of the appellants With the respond
tnt the lib cay OF August, 1854 for setting curb
and Gutter itor and aaegil both sidss
At Eigbty.ibiId ttTs.t between Third svcouc AND
Avenue A. On the 9th Of july 1851, toe Street Con-
ssioLer in pursuance OF resolution OF tho Common
COuf Gil issued spe cifc alton advertisement ~ con-
uscors that aed pTopo ais would De received AZ hia
Office until August Z, 1854 no. Jvsy tbis york which
ipeofcatiou a. sdvertis. mont contained this c,use:
F.a,ors viii ia the croposAs the prize for 'ufnsh
Ing end t'r9 curb and gutter one' ,rsang so lneaias
ia sS Ss e u PFC. Sr ss ssS aSssS IN
Gliding ne regulating II he .dewaii, .od the furnishing tho
Imovsl surplus s'ers rubbish tho plstiou
dee work and he price esbe yard for ,s~osisS ,Oet
n. fooaipg 10 the estimate Of work and materials BY
WHEN ,se 90 VII o. s,se W 80 % eoa
The rahces a the de d,o's require thai, In all
proposal Issued for work or supplies the quantity AMI
quGny The supply nature and extent OF the work
Iequir, d, sh.ll be stated.
The Chsr'er Of 1853 quires that ell the work IN
doIe suI plies TO be fun hed for the Corporation.
byOvirg Cd e1peDse Of more than $50, sbal be BY
cobts CT founCt Upon sealed bids proposals. male
after advertisement of ten days and given TO the
lowest biccer.
The respondent, among Others bid upon the work at
the following picss:
t patI ,aS.s "a S:
There were three other bidders who bid II shsiy
than the respondent for setting curb and gutter
snd girg Two of them did not bid upon rock eI-
csvstOI the ether bid s. per cubic yard for rock
e1cavsttp.
1t will be seen that the lowest bid under the est
mate contained in the specification could not be de-
tern ined. One party might bid xo,0O0 Tor setting
curb snd gutter and Tagging sod 81 per cubic yard
for removing ck another might bid $lOcO for odfb
spd gutter ard flags Bg and in this csse, rs per
cubic yaro for removing rock yet. the standard by
which be bids tested being the pri Yea for 80 ting
curb gutter std asggpg t 10 clesr that tbs latter
w.ulo he declared the lowest doer although 10 tact,
whittier BIO would be the lowest bidder would depend
n n e quantity OF rock which should ultimately bs
iOuTd
Tee coptrso. was awarded to the respondent, at .
~ uipsl bid Of e. 49, The respondent went on SUD
ttitmmed work uncer the contract. and the surveyor
returned 9i3 cuoc ysIds OF rock "a escavaed by him.
AID the 9Th August 1856 notwithstanding the oo-
ice ions Of the Controller and opinion Of Mr.. Dillon
lie late Cooperation Counsel relative 70 the validity
OF the Contract On assessment for US 7i6 for the work
was confirmed by the Common COupcii and approved
by The Mayor. The Controller psd the respondent ~
I " c.ut Il the contract price previous 10 sult
The cate was ref.n.d by order OF Court to Judge
Cowes wto rendered Judgment in favor OF resPoodsnt
for q 500 26, from which judg nent the CorPorsnos
Judge Woodruff delivered the opinion Of the Court,
reyer il The juogmen on the ground thsf the conuacs
gas VOID in lis Inception bscsue there were no osto
"a in the Of the Street Comrnlssiocsr
by which he lowest bidder for the work In question:
c1uld be d.'eroiu.d That the contract beiog soid,
DC .ubss quect ratification OF the same by the Conmos
Courcjl e. NJ ere a., any liability the part OF tho
Coyrors'on 70 psy for work performed under tue
.ans. That the confirmation OF the ASSESSMENT u"
do not thcie'oIe avail the respondent. N
NJ. A. J. " Hard for respondent, and Mr. a.
Lawrence IT,, Assistant Corporation Counsel ''f sp-
Ysilsnis.