The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1896-07-28
COURT REFUSED
TWO INJUNCTIONS
Poor Board Can Award Contract to COhO
& Co., Of New York.
OPINION OF JUDGE EDWARDS
Says II Court Of Equity Will Not Inter.
trre by Injunction to Control the
Exercise of Discretion Vested in
Trustees or Corporate Officers.
Judge Gunster's Opinion in Han.
nick Case Against the City.

Court yesterday disposed of two in
junction cases, the Scranton Supply
and Machinery company against the
Scranton poor board and Joseph Han
nick against Contractor Max Phillips
and the city of Scranton.
Judge Edwards handed down an
opinion in the aiternoon refusing to
grant an injunction restraining the
Scranton poor district from executing
with II. Il. Coho Il CO., of New York,
the contract for the erection of an
electric plant at the Hillside Home.
The injunction was prayed for by VIII
liam ii. Taylor. doing business under
the name and style of the Scranton
supply and Machinery company.
Evidence was taken last week before
Judge Edwards and arguments We're
made yesterday morning before him.
Major Everett Warren and Attorney
W. W. Watson represented the plaintiff
and Attorney John +. Scragg. solicitor
for the board, and city Solicitor James
III. Torrey opposed the injunction. The
opinion of the court is as follows:
JUDGE EDWARDS OPINION.
II is unnecessary TO detail the facts of
this cISe; they set forth at length in
tn" pldintiif's bill OF complaint. The evil
dencr does not disclose any serious con-
tradctions as to the matter IN dispute.
The psantif in attempting To make uut Il
ease requiring the Intervention of II court
Of equity. was compelled to rely Oh the
official record OF The defendants action
aS contained in its minutes, and On the
testimony Of the individual members OF
the defendant corporation.
Taking the most favorable view of the
evidence, the plaintiff has utterly failed
To- make out such a ease as would justify
us in issuing an Injunction. The conten-
tion OF the plaiimff is three fold. D That
the submission of the matter of selecting
and recommending AN electric plant to the
home committee Of the board. was irrc-
sular and without corporate authority.
t2I That tn" p!aintims bid was not fairly
considered by the committee nor by the
board, and was the subject of an unjust
discrimination. 60 That the plaintif was
the lowest responsible bidder, and, there
fore. should have been awarded the con
tract.
NO EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN.
There is no evidence to sustain the. first
proposition. If the submission to the
home committees in April of the question
of recommending an electric plant, was
not as fun and formal as might be 'lc.
sired ia the exercise of corporate authority
by the board, the acceptance of the report
and recommendation of the committee by
the meeting of July IL was a complete ra,i
iication and is binding upon the district.
Nor 10 We consider the second PROPOSE
tion tenhbr under the evidence All thc
bids were opened 10y the board at the
meeting of July 10. They Were considered
10y the committee July II. According 10 the
specifications, bidders were TO furnish the
"l'itaI engine or its equivalent AMI the
Eddy dynamo or its equivalent. The
plaintim proposed to furnish an engin"
and dynamo which he claimed and war
rante,l to be the equivalent Of the "Idear'
ana Eddy" The committee concluded
th.rt the Ideal" and Eddy We're the best
suited for the purposes of the district and
so reported to the board July ", the COR
tract being then let to the lowest of the
bidders proposing TO furnish the Ideal
engine ami Eddy" dynamo. Aside from
the technical right the board had to re-
jtCt amy and all bids we consider that the
cho!c. of one particular engine or dynamo
in preference To another was wholly with
in the discretion of the board, and is not
the subject of our supervision.
THE THIRD ALLEGATION.
AS to the third allegation the evidence
clearly sustains the contention of the
plaintiff that his bid was lower tlan any
other. The difference as We view the evil
dence one way or the other, is from about
500 to $500: but the law is well settled that
in the absence Of any restriction in the
act of incorporation, creating the lie
fe udant corporation, or of any general sta
tlitc regulating the subject. the board was
not bound to accept the lowest bid.
Even under statutes requiring that con
tracts be, let TO the lowest responsible bid
der. Il wide latitude is left to the dis"re-
tiun OF boards and councils in the selec-
tiCn Of the quality of the materials 10 he
used and of the bidders Much greater.
then, is the latitude where there Is no ie-
Strictive statute.
The broad principle of law applicable in
such eases is than in the absence of ANY
fraud or bad faith. Il court of equity VIII
mot interfere by Injunction to control the
exercise of discretion vested in trustees
or corporate officers. In this ease the
bcali Of the Scranton Poor District acted
w,l within the discretion vested in them
by tn" law We are asked to substitute
our discretion for theirs. This, We can
MT do. Within certain limits their prero-
gitivc is supreme. II they commit errors
of Judgment. which We do not say that
IN y have done. We cannot correct them.
The rule in this case is discharged ana
the preliminary injunction is refused.
H. NJ. Edwards, \. l.. j.
CASE AGAINST THE CITY.
Judge Gunster refused to grant Il per-
petual iniunctio in the equity suit of
Joseph Hannick against Contractor