The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-07-27
TIBBY & JORDAN
WIN FROM CITY
Injunction Issued by Judge
Lewis Stopping Work on
Sewer Outlet.
PLAINTIFFS IN ACTION
BIDDERS ON THE WORK
Holding of Court Is That a
Contract Must BE Let for
Work.

When Judge T. d. Lewis today sus'
tanned the general demurrer to the de-
PENDANTS answer in the case OF Ilooy
G. Jordan, contractors, against Mayor
Bransford, members of the city council
Street Supervisor j. T, Raleigh ana
CITY Engineer G.. F. McGonagle, to
restrain the city from continuing the
excavation work for the canal outlet oil
the gravity sewer, the city's answer
was set aside and an injunction to the
street supervisor from continuing win
the excavation automatically cnsued
The contractors began the ACTOR
against the city for an Injunction re-
straining Supervisor Raleigh from doing
the work. after the city council had
refused to approve the contract entered
into with Tihbv g. Jordan by the board
of public works some time ago.
libby s. Jordan were the lowest bid"
ders on the work. their offer amount
ing to S25,50S. The board Of public
works then entered into the contract
and il was sent TO the council HOW
ever. the hid was considerapIy higher
than the estimate of the city engineer S
office, and it was shown that the work
could be done bv the city under the
direction of The street department ana
Street Supervisor Raleigh for consld-
crably less. That this saving might be
made the council decided to let the
street supervisor do the work.
Contractors File Suit,
The contractors then began suit
hnrS nf tho pupnClI and
other city officials to restrain the work
from being done as ordered by the
council
4 temporary restraining order was
issued and the case was argued before
Judge r. ID. Lewis this morning In
setting aside the city's answer the
court required the plaintiffs to nut up
bond of $1,000 as a security to the
, citv.
The plaintiffs moved that the answer
leo stricken out on the ground that II
did nos contain sufficient grounds for
n defense. Attorney William Ray OF
Rawlns. Raw & Rawlins contended that
it was in the power OF the board OF
public works to let the contract and
after it had been made the mayor or
members of the council were violating
the statutes when they refused to per-
nit the board OF public works to 90
ahead with the improvement. but in
stead ordered the work done by the
street department. The arguments cen
tered around section 2S6 of the laws
of Utah, which gives the board Of pub
lie works tho authority 20 advertise for
bids and 10 let contracts for public i'm
proyemcnts.
Allegations il Answer.
In its answer the city cont ended that
the work was an emergency matter,
and must be done at once. and the de"
Law caused by the rcadvcrtising for
bids would cause injury to the city and
the improvement,
Attorney Ray took exception to this.
declaring that it could not be an emer
gency. Mr.. Rav cited the case of Mel
den against Mayor John Clark and
other city officials in which it was held
by the supreme court that the city had
not the right under the law to have
work done by the superintendent of
water works without first having nd
Vcrtised for bids through the board of
public works.
On behalf of The city's position, City
Attorney n. j. Dininny declared that
it was not the contention that the work
should not be done under the direction
Of the board of public works, but that
the council had the right to reject bids
and to order the work done by the
street department, City Attorney Di~
nInnv declared that council was iusti-
fed in its action, in that il was case
of emergency. He said that the council
should have some discretion in the mat
ter OF approving bids for the protec.
tion OF the city.
Assistant City Attorney DALI de.
clared that there was little doubt in
his mind but that the section in oues.
tion was. unconstitutional He main.
tanned that the extension Of the sewer
was private work and that the city as
corporation had a right to proceed
with it,