The Marlboro democrat. [volume] (Bennettsville, S.C.) 1882-1908, 1904-02-26

llanS. specifications or written contract
of the use o. ownership of the .'oid ma
teIiaI in question Is to be found in
the specifications. In the following
words:: The successful contractor will
be permitted TO use all old material
, that is now cn the ground. and such
parts of the present roof that conform
to these plans and specifications; but it
Is understood that the marble now on
the grounds is not included. This only
covers the granite columns, balusters,
old iron. bracing, granite, etc, in the
roof that is suitable, and the proper
size that is called for. II in doubt con-
suit the architect on this subject be-
fore making q bid"
2. Before bidding on the work Nc
llyain-Unkefer company, as well as
upon the architect. l.. p. Milburn. for
an interpretation OF the clause quoted
CONCERNING which they were i'm doubt.
3. The architect informed the con
tractors that the contractors bidding
for the work would get such 'old ma
tcriai. and would be permitted to use
such Old parts as would conform with
the new plans and specifications"
tSee Milburn's letter. July 81, 19o1.)
t. Acting upon the Interpretation
given Ey the architect, McIlvain- -Unke-
fer company, after making allowances
for what was conceived to be the
value of the .'old material to them.
put in their bid for the contract, and
.. One MIR. Garfunkel, Il junk dealer,
submitted TO the commission a PROPOSE
ton to buy the copper and old iron
then in the old roof, and the commits
sion. upon accepting McIlvain- Unkerer
company's bid, ordered that he com
munication of MIR. Garfunkel be turned
over To the successful bidding con
tractor, upon the ground that the said
old material" was ut the disposal OF
the latter.
The clause quoted for the spccifica-
tionS bears internal evidence of con-
sciouS ambiguity. and the conflicting
interest is susceptible of various in
terpretationS II is easy to conceive
that the bidding contractors could
claim with a show of reason, the title
to the old material in question, ana
inasmuch as the paper containing the
clause WAS prepared for and III behalf
of the commission, and the law would,
as l understand II. construc the con-
tract strictly against the commission
and in favor of the bidder, for one rea-
son, among others, that in cases OF
doubt the construction by the con-
tractors must be given the benefit of
the doubt. naSmuch as the commits
sion. as the author of the Spccitca-
tionS. mus suffer. If either party must,
Oh account uI ambiguity.
But | think that up to n very recent
date il haze been the understanding on
all sides that the contractors should be
the owners OF the old material, and
the facts as found seem to me to pre-
ciude any other conclusion
The statement of Alilburn. the archi-
tect, SDen king on behalf of the commits
sion. the known conduct OF the con-
r:lctnrS, based upon MilDurn'S inter
probation, the acceptance Of the bid
based upon the supposed ownership by
the contractors OF the Old MATERIAL"
and the dcclination to treat with a pro-
posed purchaser for the sale of the old
material, and the reference OF his bid
to McIivaine-U -Unkefer company, all
estop the commission from claiming
the "old material in question.
Hoping that this will meet with your
approval, / am,
Very truly yours.
(Signed) G; Duncan BeliinEer
Attorney General.
Upon motion Of MIR. Mower the opin-
ion Of The attorney general was APP
proved by Il vote taken viva voce, Mr..
Marshall voting against ii.
F.H.lIIRIT l.
Columbia. S. c.. Feb 15,l90+.
This CertilleS that in the fall of 1901
'~~,.~t' r"N',N 7 = t,arf,nlynI f0r, : he