The Bridgeport times and evening farmer., 1921-04-07
DROP INJUNCTION IF COMPANIES BOOKS ARE
 OPENED TO AUDITORS

David H. Day, counsel for the plaintiffs who have secured an injunction against the Bridge port Construction Company, by which the city Is prevented from paying S32, ,O00 in matured claims for work done, gave an interview to The Times today, in which he said that the com pany will have an equitable claim against the city for work actually done, even though it's contract should be set aside.
 MT. Day proposed that the Bridge port Construction Company submit it's books to an audit, and said that the plaintiffs will be willing to with [ draw the suit if it is discovered that the company is actually entitled to the amount it claims.
 Thomas M. Cullinan, who repre- sentS the company. said today: This is a proposal to change the case to another tribunal. The suit is against the city, not against the Bridgeport Construction Company. I have not talked with my client, R. E. DonneIly, manager of the company. He may or may not be willing to submit his books to an unofficial tribunal. l believe that my proposal in which I
 
 be asked to validate these illegally contracted bills is sound, and the best way out of the woods
 MT. Day, however, is opposed to this solution.
 Mir. Day, discussing the matter said:
 with regard to the suggestion of MT. Cullinan, attorney for the Bridge port Construction company, that the Legislative permission be secured for the payment of all bills against the city covered by deficiency appropria- ions, have only this to say: The InJunetion proceeding brought against the Bridgeport Construction company is based upon two specific violations of the city charter and ordinances, both adopted for the express purpose of protecting the rights of the tax payers, namely, the prohibition of the charter against contracting debts in excess of appropriations and the requirements of the ordinances that contra cts in excess of s20O be sub mitted to public bid.
 If the injunction of the plaintiffs is upheld by the Court, the result will be Hhat these contracts will be held illegal and not binding upon the city. Whatever claim the Brid geport Con- struction Company has under these circumstances, legal or equitable. will be to recover not on the basis of the contract but Independently of the contract fair price for the work performed based on the value ot this work to the city and a reasonable compensation for such work. The plaintiffs in this case are not disposed to prevent any contractor with the city from recovering the fair value of services rendered to the city and from which the city has received the benefit. The evidence of these facts rest in the books and records of the Construction Company So far as this particular company is con- cerned and in the general circum- stances surrounding it's business deal ings with the City of Bridgeport
 If the Bridgeport Construction Company is willing to permit a com plete audit of it's books and to pro duce all other facts essential to this and it appears from such examination that the company is entitled to all or any part of the bills | which it has rendered against the city, the plaintiffs in this action will be perfectly willing to withdraw the ac- ton now commenced and permit such payments to be made l do not know whether MT. Cullinan'S client, in the general injunction proceedings which have been commenced, would be will ing to take this stand with respect to the bills of other contractors or not, but it seems to me that, under the it is a much fairer way to dispose of these claims than to make an application to the Legis- Iature to indiscriminateIy permit / payment of bills illegally contracted / without consideration as to the merits of the bills themselves.