New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1861-02-27
LAW NTlELLIGENCE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAs-sPEcrAL TRRx-FyB 10
Before Judge BRADY.
sTREET-cLEAsIgG cOETRAcT-IsJUECTlOS ID
SOLVED.
VIM H. Williams agt. The Mayor &c.


SOLVED.
VIM. II. Williams agt. The Mayor &C.
This was application for injunction to restrain
the defendants from proceeding with the award OF con-
tract to Andrew j. Hackley for cleaning the streets OF
the city, the plaintiff claiming that he was entitled to
the contract, as he was the lowest bidder. Judge
Brady has rendered the following opinion in the case,
dssoving the temporary injunction and denying the re-
lief asked:
BRADY J-Whether the injunction granted in this
case shoud be continued not depends upon the right
of the plaintiff the contract for cleaning the Streets
by reason Of his having been the lowest oiGder IN tne
proposals made Upon the conclusions at which have
arrived it il not necessary to consider any other ques
tion BY the 18th section Of the Charter Of 1851 it Is
proyided that all contracts shall be entered into by the
appropriate heads of departments, and shall De founded
on sealed bids or proposals made In compliance WIN
publc notice advertised n such Of the newspapers OF
the cy as NAV be employed by the Corporation for the
purpose and that all such contracts, when gwen, sna
be given to the lowest bidder the terms OF whose con
act of preliminary specification to the bid or proposal
and who shall give security for the faithful performance
of his contract In the manner prescribed ana
by ordinance Under this section the lowest BIDDER
who in all things else complied with the stat-
ute and ordinance, and the adequacy and SUI
fciency of whose security was approved by the
Controller, acquired right to the contract to winch
his bid related, and of which LIE could not De easily ee
was arbitrary leaving discretion TO be empioyeu,
and determining the contractor by figures alone Inc
act Of 1860 Session Laws, p. l0i1 invaded tbs pro-
vision in reference TO contracts LOT cleaning the
and making and repairing the roads, and coangea the
mode Of awarding them BY the fourth section oil that
act il is declared lawful for the Mayor and Common
Council to authorize and make cause to be made any
agreement agreements contract or contracts, lor
cleaning the streets of NewYork, for and during
term of wears not TO exceed five. IL s also declared
that the proposals for such contract shall be advertised
l. L. ata A hu ha
mon Council and that the contract or contracts snail
be awarded as in the judgment OF the Mayor ana Co-
mon Council shall be for the interests oil the city IN
conformity 10 this statute resolution was paseed oy
the Common Council directing the City inspector 10
advertise proposals for the contract for cleaning the
streets aud xed such proposals TO the resolution
The advertisement was accordingly made and the con-
tract awarded TO the defendant Hackey, alhough ne
was not the lowest bidder.
There are no facts alleged, arraigning the Mayor
and Common Council for the exercise OF their discre
ton in the stated, and no charges Oh lhPru-
dence or corruption made. The statute OF lco0 does
not iself determine as in the Charter oil 1901, 10
whom the contract shall be gyen but leaves II 10 De
awarded in the judgment OF the Mayor and common
Council should be for the interests OF the city, IL n
poses upon them the duty Of exercising their Judgment
In reference 10 the bids made, and the person with
whom the contract should be made, and though
Il and the Charter Of 1857, relative 10 contacts are
in pdri materta they cmnot be construed tose.her
1t has already appeared that by the htter Aet the
lowest bidder takes as matter Of conrse. while by
the former the Mayor and Common Council are to
examine the bids and 70 employ their Judgment In
determining TO whom the contract should be given
One statute il imperative, and the other grants DIS
cretionary power 10 the Mayor and Common Council
and is in the nature Of special direction on the
subjects TO which it related and which II exGePts from
the provisions of the Charter of 1851 follows from
this that the Mayor and Common Council were not
obliged 10 accept the proposals Of the plaintiff ana That
not being entitled the contract, and the act COM
planned Of not involving any peculiar damage 10 his
| he
defendants as entities bim ~ restrain them from per
fectng the contract. (Dooitte ct al. V. Supervisors
of Broome, Is n. Y Rep, l53) The fact that the
sal estimates and specifications and that the blanks
thus furnished contain statement that street COM
pliance with the provisions OF part Title OF the
Ordinances organizing the Departments Of the Munc-
ipal Government, passed May 8, 1873, and as subse,
quenily amended, will be observed and required In all
cases far the applicable TO the foregoing
resolution and proposals. dbl not give TO the bidders
any right, or impose upon the Mayor and Common
Council any duty obligation except that growing
out Of the provisions of the act Of $780, assuming such
statement VI the City Inspector to have been author
lied by the Mayor and Common Council, and for the
that toe ordinances referred TO were only to be
enforced FAR they applicable TO the resolu
ton and proposals. published, and In which resolution
and proposals. il nowhere stated that the contract
would be given to the lowest bidder. do not feel
called upon express any opinion upon the manner In
which the judgment of the Mayor and Common Coun-
Gil has been exercised, in giving TO the defendant
HICKEY Tue COnlEtNt "niSh Pithu'm NiaHa' hhO
case as il presents itself my MUD, the papers
submitted involves the abstract question Of the right
of the plaintiff TO the contract, which he seeks TO
secure and which for the reasons assigned think he
does not possess. The injunction must be dissolved
Mr.. Woodruff and John w. Edmonds for the plain
tiff; Ii. III. Anderson aud Charles O'Conor for the
defendants.
SUPREME CoURT-GzSERAL TERs-FgB @-Before
Justices CLERKR, SUTHERLAND, and lSGRABAN.
TICKET SWISDLING-CASE OF ESBGHr.
James Enrsht Defendant In Emo sg The People &C., Plain
ths In Error.
The defendant was convicted in the Court Of Oyer
and Temner Of selling ticket without authority which Is
made adctabs ooase by Of Legislature The defendant
appeals technical ground-hr that the indictment
dawn guy and second that the rulings Of the Judge
The occupied the Of the day
A. Oakley Hall Tor aPpeant Mr. Waterbury for the respond
cuts.
CHsBERs-Before Justice LEONARD.
DECISIONS.
A. Mcbride agt. Theodore Hunt.-Motion denied
without costs.
H. Is. sgt. Henry Johnson ct sL-MotiOn denied
costs Of motion : 10, 10 be costs la tao sction
Lippincoa sg; Haywood-Moton granted payment OF
80 cost, VI opposing motion.