The weekly Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1911-1922, 1911-07-06
COURTHOUSE SUIT
WILL PROBABLY END
Fifth Decision in Noted Case Gives Hopes
of Termination of Unpleasant War
fare in Court What the Decision
Really Was.

der saying that the old boiler would
be used and the notice to bidders con-
tanned provision to that effect. On
these facts, the insertion of the fore
going words clearly amount TO only a
harmless irregularity and do not in
alidate said contract"
In his bids Ger el ctric wiring
and plumbing, each consisting of a
single item, O'Kee!e inserts the
words: This bill is conditional upon
being awarded all the work. .
" He was not competing for t a. part
Of the work on the same lasis as
other bidders. IN so doing he iOIat-
ed the statute by effectually altering
the form and maxine Of the two bids
containing the unlimited demand fer
all the work or none Our co cln-
sion is that the words inserted IN
0'Keefe's BID under the general
specifications and these inserted In
the bid for heating were not material
alterations and In no wav changed
the nature or character of those bids
from what they were before the
words were inserted: on the ether
hand. the words inserted in the bids
for plumbing an electric wiring. were
material alterations. the effect Of
which was to place those bids on a
basis entirely different from those of
other bidders and from the prescrib-
ed forms. in this. that O'Keefe was
relieved from tatinr tho wor'- cover
ed bv each of those bids urlesS he
secured all the work Thic violated
the plain terms of the Statute an,
prevented connection intended to be
secured bv the law.
(6) The appellant (Nessl was not
guilty of laches unnecessary delay
in the prosecution of his suit
Attempt to Stop Litigation.
1t is plain that the court til n<s lit
igation in this matter sould cease
for they say this:
"The character Of the work coy-
cred by the bids and contracts and
justice to the parties do not require
that new trial be granted. 1t is
our view that the judgment of this
court be such as to terminate further
litigation, and, under this state of
affairs we are empowered bv Sec
7O2 of Burns 1908 to do this
just what the court means by this
is not clear, for they have no power,
it is said to stop the further action
of said bidders was notified to COM
sire to 90 further. Perhaps it is on'y
intended to advise them to let this
decision be final in the matter.
It will be seen. that the decision Is
more favorable to O'Keefe than to
Ness, because it leaves to O'Keefe
the bulk of the contract. In this
respect it is much different than the
first decision of the Appellate court.
That decision declared the entire con-
tract void and O'Keefe's bid invalid.
Here is an extract from that opinion
showing its effect:
"The specifications, the instrue-
tions to bidders, and the blank forms
submitted each called for separate
bids upon the items therein speci' led.
Upon these various items then each
of said bidde1s were notified to COM
pete. aEd this was the ground upon
which they were directed to meet
To permit bidder to select another
and different ground and to submit
another and different promo it on
from that specified. and different
from that which other bidders were
notified would be considered. certai"-
ly would not conform to the defi"i-
tion of . competition. Apnellee o.
Keefe did not hid separately on anv-
thing. His bid was simply an acre
gate hid for all the work. He did
not offer to construct anv portian of
the work separately. TIE cnlv vsr a
tion that could he made n the agor"-
gate amount of his bid was in tn"
choice of materials designated for
certain work. For example. if t'e
commissioners desired tile roofin~ H.
stead Of metal roofino. his agure~"te
bid would he increased IN propor'io,
to the difference in cost Of F.e tw'
classes of work. The sarre is t-ne
as to the matter Of cat and Tar-s-zs
flooring. The board of conuissiar~-~