Case Name: Cincinnati (City) v. J. H. Baumer et al.
Court: Ohio Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1908
Citations: 22 Ohio C.C. Dec. 727
Docket Number: 
Parties: Cincinnati (City) v. J. H. Baumer et al.
Judges: G-iffen, Smith and Swing, JJ.
Reporter: Ohio Circuit Court Decisions
Volume: 22
Pages: 727–728

Head Matter:
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — PRINCIPAL AND SURETY.
[Hamilton (1st) Circuit Court,
1908.]
G-iffen, Smith and Swing, JJ.
Cincinnati (City) v. J. H. Baumer et al.
Sureties of Defaulting Contractor Compelled to Pay Difference Between Bids of Principal and Next Lowest Bidder Estopped to Complain.
Sureties of f. defaulting contractor for public work, in the absence of abuse of discretion shown, cannot complain that the contract was relet to next lowest and best bidder and the loss thereby sustained taken as the measure of their liability.
Error to common pleas court.
Jonas B. Frenkel, for Water Works trustees.
Edward M. Ballard, for the city.
D. F. Cash, for defendants.

Opinion:
GIFFEN, J.
The bond m suit is statutory (Cincinnati water works; act, 92 O. L. 606), and in determining its effect reference should be 'had to the statute which authorizes its execution and prescribes its objects. Secrest v. Barbee, 17 Ohio St. 426.
The damages could be easily ascertained in two ways, either by reletting the contract to the next lowest and best bidder, or by readvertising and reletting to the lowest and best bidder. The commissioners of waterworks in the exercise of the discretion conferred by statute, relet the contract to the next lowest and best bidder at a loss of more than twice the amount of the bond, and there is nothing in the record showing any abuse of discretion, or that a readvertisement would have-resulted in less loss to the city.
Judgment reversed and judgment for plaintiff in error.
Smith and Swing, JJ., concur.