New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-01-21
fay.OaT1yT TO CONTRACTORS.

=
: fbe Cou,r ,,Ier hos received the fstow,g certified
copy Of decision Of the colrs Of Appeal, a. the De-
cenber tenn, 1850. The principe decided is o. great
importance a.i. defsss.the reeve alnostauy othe
contractors under the late Street Commissioners Taylor
The principle decided thai all con-acts nussbe gvsa
to tbe lowest BIDDERS <se quantities deoeoprd, ar
not M a. estimated ssnnti,ies. Thus Mr.. Charles
Deylin win lind standing block in the way Of his
srspripa tie money on bis claims, which reSeh 10
so Co., So TOO of several other contractors.
~ COURT or irFfVS.
James y. Brldy We. TIM Mayor Of Ncw-YorA.
llTNro The I'm session Of the Act OF 1885,
uncndins the Cbger Of tbs City Of NeYo esabishsI
system by which ell work to be rerorned Tor tho city which
ooneiton and ehonld be- gv out 20 The patty who you'd
undertake dot for the SMALLEST amount N money was
1 3. s% "P1Ss e9 % PS q The oe 70
making contracts ior the pub ercs was committed II exc
oSbng and such we. ts obvious purpose dce.ot require
ny oue to show flat c'Js't made n violation 81 Us %
whether under consideration made Ia fbFther
Rs Of & RGes e m Ry the to or M G'Gsi
be performed IN Fizhythd street was in part the
agsp9 q ens "ns Tho rock casoon according TO
plaintiff clam than sveneghths Of the whole er
bewGk foim Of inviting proposals snd Of awarding con-
oe adopted b., vas 40 S. s W.. bon II ~
paid price she bidder chose TO insert in his Propo
sosD 81 n. %cl & d os o% n any one %
proposal which should have oosenod tine IN fhs
len lie recE to be paid for BY days work at what l. was
worth would ssJe See9 70 dPSn II md il ws prac
csy possible subject the removing OF the rock 10 conP
o Method Of srsnsns the proposals. might have been
Bot !; not iTana ~ ,ss or any
DILIGENTLY in stating the quantity Of rock excavation WIFE SUN
o,bs .b r Construction 81 the finding That could DO
such approximate accuracyas would oe
Sun Sssi i 10 e hat Re PLAN the
bidder soa not is S Of tho Street sse
under the charter and ordinances to have stated In h TIME
~ be required in doing the work in question and have included
Il among The by which his bids 70 be tested Unless
the referee believed upon the egid thai was
acenrnen such degree Of certainty as TO en9ee tie
the d 70! tg Rn g DS bs @ my .c
say the OF such matters which every nas may
sgeisnt to accarcy to expos It
petition The distanea in lergth only about zee. feet Il
Conmssoners office which necessarily showed the conforcs
tic. Ct the s S ee e lcst OF en s pon
oft which above .he grade sndt determine ~ making 50
%sy cp Of St 'n ci the d
sasniy By cscaston No Doubt would rcSairs time,
az, really useful 1bo,y had oices IN i, pay CHE ar
AZ oain.nce Of the co@on Council rasd The Street Com
missioner state IN bis adveriseru Tor bids the n'une and
suade myself that this in hch mpOsbl,
sq to sHS sG he s D Sr
OF quantity fixed rock and 70 rive
cubic yards sufficiently exact 10 enable desos OF
competing prepare with prudence and safety for esch item OF
he work II This had been done and the result Of all the
had been taken uto the in selecting the lowest
bidder given to that would have been swsrded
aecodirgto the The successful bidder here arrived
laying the the bulk o the work in point Of
labor expense and testing the offers by the price proposed
uncomfortable poon OF it. The plaintiff Claims under
s1bed by law II in doing H. he violated think he did the
Dandstes Of that law tie act Illegal and the plaintiff
can claim nothing under t.
plaintiff offered show NY the production Of the ohinai
bis that the plaintiff the lowest bidder according the
data given In the Commissioners proposa and the Offer
IeJered unless proof Of fraudulent cousion was else
contract might be given the highest instead OF tbs
est bidder ard Guild be of equal validity though prop
coszsnt OF the essy the s that nc entitled 10 be
hen the bids cpeped aud 1t Is not unreasonable
he should Il that he BY lay entitled to the contract
which given him. But Il not necessary to decide this
of the Street CoInmouer were Illegal upon their
j declaring that the successful bidder would be
tanned W which left out Of view the principal part Of the
work. =,
not ceary deny that who has bora de performed
labor which is void from failure 10 comply with
sntain action against the city to
merrill where the work has been accepted by the city,
and has into for public purposes The pnn objected
evidence 70 the price OF rock excavation and was
there should b. trial in order 10 enable its
lie ,Sos o. o Common Council In confirming the assess
S % sea I'd H fh Soay cGd not
errnaly lawful has been made by the officer
to whom thai dirty was committed BY law cannot be helped
estoppe IL between other parties and did not Affect
the plaintiff in way 1t proves perhaps that the Couon
have snce 10 aud our duty pass upon
defense which they have presented In favor OF enns
the judgment Of the Supreme Court.
s--.--s----.-.s-