The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-02-04
SUPREME COuaT-GsNsaAl Term.

The Patent Pavement LfiGufon--Thc Court
.Sustnins the Contract Of the City with the
Pntentecs.
Before Judges Barnard, Ingraham and Carcozo
Astor ct al. as. The Mayor, &C., ar Ne'o York. DO
ian rs. The Sdme.-rhese cases were argued at the
November term Of this court, and in each case an
Injunction had previously been granted to restrain
the laying Of certain pavement-in the former
to enon the paving OF Thirty third street with Mic
olson pavement and in the latter prevent Seventh
avenue being paved from Fourteenth street to Fifty
ninth street, with Stafford pavement The authority
for this paving in both cases derived under re-
solutions OF the Common Council. Both the plaintiffs
are properly owners on the thoroughfares desig
nated and brought their suits on behalf OF them
selves and all others similarly situated, but each
case decision adverse 10 the plaintiffs has been
rendered.
Mr.. Justice rngraham, in his opinion, says that in
the irst the Injunction mad, after argument be-
fore Special Term, been dissolved, and in the sec
Ond case continued. From both orders appeals
taken, and on the appeals both presented
the same questions for consideration. The grounds
upon which tine injunctt0ns were granted were, that
the pavements were each patented and could not be
the subject OF competition among contractors, and
that the Corporation could not contract for ts use
such pavement TO be laid down without
violating the city charter. by section thrtye ght OF
the act Of April 4. 1857, It Is provided tnat when
ever any work is necessary to be done or any sup
plies needu for any purpose which has to be under
taken or furnished for the Corporation, and the
shall involve the expenditure OF than $3.50, the
same shall be by contract 1t is also provided that
such contract shall be made on public notice ana
awarded TO the lowest bidder. The act OF April,
1851, directs that all contracts shall be awarded TO
lowest bidder. The right to use these psvcmcnts
being secured by patent to the Nicoson Pavement
Company I'm one case and to individuals In the other
II IL c0ntended that as no competition can
take place in regard to dong this work
there can be no oder for bids that can he or any
avail and therefore the Corporation by the provisions
OF Its charter cannot contract for these paycments
with the patentees and are virtually prohibited from
using them. The real question IL whether when
municipal corporation Is required by It's charter TO
accept bids for work materials, patented articles
or modes OF doing the work are prohibited by that
provision because such articles or modes OF work
cannot be the subject OF competition. The Leglsla-
turc could not have required composition for an ar
tlcle which but person could furnish for work
which but one person could perform, and think 10
equally reasonable TO suppose that II they intended
70 prohibit the use OF patented articles or work Tor
this purpose they could have used language applica
cannot avoid the conclusion that this dlfnculty did
not occur TO the Legislature Ia passing this statute.
This then brings us TO the question whether patented
articles are forbidden. To say that the Legislature
be furnished only by one person or company, and
that the lowest bids shall be accepted without
any right TO refuse the work or reject the bid.
mercy Of the patcntee and liable to pay any price
that might be imposed: aud to say that the city
should not In any way use patented articles would
be to deprive them OF all improvements In matters
necessary to the municipal government, and leave
eors trod without the benent OF any new discoveries
IN science or any advance In modes OF work appica-
bic to public use. Judge Ingraam then proceeds to
say that IN hts Judgment the statute does not re-
of the Legislature was TO require all materials and
work that could be performed by different persona TO
he the subject Of competition. The very object OF
the provision was 10 obtain bids from different per-