The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-05-12
LEGAL INTELLIGENCE.

INJUNCTION AGAINST THE CITY COMMISSIONERS.
Court Of Common PIeas-Juoge Ludlow
Frlee vs. Ihe City of Philadelphia. This morning
Judge Ludlow delivered the following opinion in
the above case -
This Is an application for a special injunction
AGAINST the City Commissioners and the Civ of
Phhadelpha TO restrain the PENDANTS from CENTER
ing INTO a contract with samuel NJ Smith TO fur
nish to the Department of the CITY Comm issionersu
certain articles of stationery specified IN the sche.
dule annexed 70 The bill Fl led in this suit
1t is too late to question the jurisdiction of this
Court in cause like the present We have exer-
clsed the power now invoked in more than one in.
stance, and nearly year ago we were called uDon
TO express an opinion in contest then pending
between the same parties who are now before the
Court and IN case very similar to the present the
late President OF the Court then delivered an opinion
upon the subject in which concurred and 1t is use
les Low to repeat wnat then said or to attempt
TO overthrow the principle upon which tnat ildg.
mem was founded ana we therefore proceed at once
10 determine inns controversy by the evidence in the
cause. '
II cannot be Quilted that the City Commissioners
were bound by the ordinance Of Both Decemoer
1861 TO open the proposals in the pre- ence of the
Committee o. Finance. and to award the contract to
this? II they did not and the bid of Samuel M
Smith was not opened in the presence of the Com
mitee ne is not emitted TO the contract no matter
what may have been the character OF his bid
The solution of the question at issue depends upon
the testimony of Mr.. Marcer, the Chairman of the
Committee, and OF Mr. EckseIn, the Clerk Mr.
Marcer identified paper purporiing to be the bd
OF Mr. Smith by writing his name and the day of
the month and year at the end thereof but he de.
clares that he di0 after the bids had been opened
and read, and merely for the purpose of identified
ton. He further says;-"We depended upon our
clerk Tor taking memorandum OF the bIds" And
again, "A1er al had been read put my name on
such as Tag upon the table. The CLERK makes
record OF the Dids, and it rot worth while for
me to sign each bid as 1t was separately presented
ana read "
MIR Eckstein says, "a heard all the bids read off,
and noted them down Tor re-cntry the minute
book of the committee. l have here the Orlgina
notes. did not hear any bid OF Samuel NJ Smith
read OFF / think if here had been one read wonId
have heard it; took each bid Tor each item down
separately, and compared the bids of the several
bidders tOgel her to see who was the Lowest. did
not near Ar Smth's name at ALL"
This witness was recalled, and he again said, al
made memorandum of the bids presented, they
Smith don't appear on the paper (memoranduml; [
don't think the bid OF Mr.. Smith could have been
read without my hearing T; | did not hear Mr.
smiths name at al; wou.d have heard 1t, 1 think
If II had been read"
When we remember that the bid in question con.
sisted Of seventeen distinct items, each OF which
must have been, II read at all, distinctly announced
1t rs impossible 10 be ieVe that the Clerk of the Com
mttee OF FlDance would not have head q single
one, and especially must this conclusion orce itself
upon the mind, when we Iurther remember that Mr..
Ecksten did not copy the bids, but noted them down
as read by Hamilton that he did not see the orlgi-
mails, and that his memorandum contains the names
o the bidders and the various items OF each OF the
several dds then and there read and yet this paper
does not contain the name of S. NJ Smith, nor
single item representing any one OF the seventeen
disunct bids said TO have been made
The affidavit Of the City Commissioner does NOT
When closely examined, contradict this state of
facts. II VIII prOduce the bids which were Onened
in the presence OF the Committee of Finance as at
tested by their Chairman, Joseph f. Marcer at that
time" says the affidavit tut does not declare that
the bid was read lgh the other bids and at the same
time, and Mr.. MMcer simply identified paners
handed to him after the proposals had been opened
and read; he depended upon the clerk of his com.
mittee to make note OF the proposals, and has no
knowledge OF the contents of the various papers he
fore the Committee ano the Commissioners, and
does not remember that MIR. Smiths bid was read
at ALL
With this evidence before it is clearly our duty
to restrain the defendants from entering into this
contract and therefore grant the special injuno.
tlOn upon bond being executed by complainant, in
the sum Of $500