Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1880-02-22
R. SadIcr, Respondent, vs.. the County
Commissioners, Appellant.
DECISION OF THE SUPREME
COURT.
Extras in the Aggregate Must Fall
within $500.
ToprSroS BY HAwLEY, ~

" = Ca
| Court House purposes by the raid county
of Eureka provided, that the cost OF con-
| structing and furnishing the same, the
| contract to be let to the lowest responsible
| bidder, shall in no event exceed the sum Of
$50, O0O." (Stat. 1879, 40 After giving the
| notice required by law, o contract for
building the Court House according to GER
| tain plans and specifications, was awarded
to the lowest bidder. to wit: 70 A. Boun-
gard, for the sum Of $40, 0Oo.
This contract was executed on the Oath
of May, 1879, and on the 10th, an order
was made, approving the bond of said
| Boungard, given in the penal sum of $780,
600.
Thereafter, to wit: On the 9Th day Of
| June, 1879, the Commissioner ordered
that q contract be entered into with A.
| Boungard to dig an additional depth, to
wit The depth OF at least eleven feet. or
until white sand shall be reached, for q
foundation of the new Court House, and
to build a stone wall therein, sufficient to
meet the walls already contracted for, and
that on the approval Of said work by the
Board, that said Boungard be paid the
sum Of $780,"
On the 10th of June the Commissioners
'sordered that the inside walls on the east
| side of the Sheriff's room, and room adj
| joining such cross wall, between the
Sheriff's and the adjoining room be made
| two feet wide instead of sixteen inches, TO
receive brick walls and joists the founda-
ton of said walls to be sunk to the white
sand; said work to cost not to exceed $780,
On the 21st of june four separate orders
were made for other changes and altera-
| tions in the original contract, and on the
| 3Oth day Of June, two other orders of like
import, Zone Of which was afterwards re-
scinded). Each Of the said orders is con-
| ditioned that the cost Of the work specified
| shall not exceed $500.
Did the Commissioners, under the pro-
| visions Of the statute, have the power to
| make the orders entered on the 10th, 21st
and Seth of June, without previous adver-
| tisement, as to the letting Of such contracts?
The statute provides that " the Board of
| Commissioners shall have power and juris-
| diction is their respective counties \ n
to cause to be erected and furnished a court
house, jail, and such other public buildings
as may be necessary, and to keep the same
in repair; provided that the contract for
building the courthouse, jail and other
buildings be let out, after at least thirty
DAYS previous public notice n \ 4 to
the lowest bidder who will give good and
sufficient security for the completion of any
contract which he may make respecting
the same. But no bid shall be accepted
(which the Board may deem too high"
e Comp. l.. 3077.)
By a supplementary Act it is provided
that ''In letting all contracts, Of any and
every kind, character and description,
whatever, where the contract in the aggre-
gate amounts to $500 or more, the County
Commissioners shall advertise such con-
tract or contracts to be let, stating the ma
ture and character thereof, and when plans
and specifications are to constitute part Of
| such contract, it shall be stated in the no.
tice where the same may be seen-in some
newspaper published in their county for
thirty days; in case the contract be for con-
| structing any public building, then the ad-
vertisment shall be in that paper published
in the county which is nearest the selected
location for such building q
Comp. l.. 3105l.
1t is apparent upon the face of said or
ders that the Commissioner exceeded their
jurisdiction in declaring that the cost of
said work should not exceed $500 instead
Of should not amount to $500.
The Judgment Of the District Court could
be sustained Upon this technical ground.
But upon a careful consideration of the
various provisions Of the statute relating
to the duties of County Commissioner we
are Of opinion that the action of the court
below in annulling all the orders Of the
Board, made subsequent to the 9th of
June, ought to be sustained upon the
merits.
The powers Of the Commissioners and
the mode of exercising them, being de-
rived from the statute, must necessarily
depend upon its true construction.
The restrictive provisions Of the statute
were evidently inserted for the protection
and benefit of the public, and were in
tended to guard against favoritism, ex-
travagance or corruption in the letting of
contracts Tor any public work. When the
Commissioners act under such authority,
they must strictly follow all the conditions
under which the authority is given.
The law is well settled that County
Commissioner can only exercise such pow
ers as are especially granted, or as may be
necessarily incidental for the purpose OF
carrying such powers into effect; and when
the law prescribes the mode which they
must pursue, in the exercise of these pow
ers, it excludes all other modes Of proce-
dure.
Under the terms OF the statute the Com
m~issioners after letting the principal con-
tract had the power, without any further
advertisement, to contract with the con-
~tractor) for any alterations or changes in
the original plans and specifications; pro-
vided, the same in the aggregate did not
amount to the sum of $500. The statute
does not contemplate that any other
| changes should be made, and as no change
could be made without the consent of the
| original contractor (unless he ~forfeits or
abandons his contract without rendering
the county liable for damages, it is, to say
the least, very doubtful whether the Com
missioners have any authority to make any
other contract or further change in the
| plan and specifications. That question,
however, is not directly involved in this
case and need not be decided.
If the power exists to make a contract for
any other chages or alterations than those
already specified, it could only be exercised
by advertising for such work and letting
the same to the lowest bidder.
The Commissioners cannot do indirectly
what they are directly prohibited from do
ing. Under the plea Of necessity for a
| change in the original plan and specifca-
tons they cannot ignore the provision OF
the statute, requiring contracts to be let to
the lowest bidder.
If the power attempted to be exercised
by the Commissioners was to receive judi
cial sanction, it would strip the public of the
very protection which the Legislature in
tended to give by the restrictions which it
imposed.
The Commissioners might, in my case,
| agree in advance with some ~favorite con-
tractor that il he would put in a bid for a
sum much less than he knew the work
| could be done for, they would allow him
sufficient for changes and alterations in
the plan and specifications to fully remu-
nerate him for his work, thereby defraud-
ing the rights of honest competing bidders.
as we'll as depriving the public Of the pro-
lection given by the statute.