Case Name: In the Matter of the Application of The Hilton Bridge Construction Company for a Writ of Peremptory Mandamus. The Hilton Bridge Construction Company, Appellant; George W. Aldridge, as Superintendent of Public Works of the State of New York, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1897-01
Citations: 13 A.D. 24
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Application of The Hilton Bridge Construction Company for a Writ of Peremptory Mandamus. The Hilton Bridge Construction Company, Appellant; George W. Aldridge, as Superintendent of Public Works of the State of New York, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 13
Pages: 24–42

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Application of The Hilton Bridge Construction Company for a Writ of Peremptory Mandamus. The Hilton Bridge Construction Company, Appellant; George W. Aldridge, as Superintendent of Public Works of the State of New York, Respondent.
Mandamus — remedy of a defeated bidder for work on the canals where the bid of the successful bidder is too indefinite — the successful bidder is a necessary party.
A writ of mandamus, to compel the Superintendent of Public Worbs to award to the petitioner a contract for alterations in certain bridges over the Erie canal, will not be issued in a case where the successful bidder, to whom the contract has already been awarded, is not made a party to the proceeding.
Where the statute authorizing such alterations provides that the contract therefor shall “be let to the lowest bidder or bidders, * * * except such portions thereof as, in the judgment of the Superintendent of Public Works and the State Engineer, cannot he so done to the best interests of the State,” and the notice for bids reserved the right to reject any or all bids, the defeated bidder is not entitled to have his bid accepted merely because the bid of the successful bidder is too indefinite.
In such a situation, the defeated bidder is merely entitled to have the bid of the successful bidder set aside, and then to require the State officers either to accept his bid or to advertise anew.
Appeal by the petitioner, The Hilton Bridge Construction Company, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Albany Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Albany on the 21st day of August, 1896, denying its motion for a peremptory writ of mandamus.
By chapter 170 of the Laws of 1895 the Superintendent of Public Works was authorized to take out and remove the machinery for operating lift bridges over the Erie canal on Genesee street in the city of Utica, and substitute therefor other motive power and machinery, and alter the lift and permanent bridges theretofore erected.
The law provides (§ 5) that “ the furnishing of all material and the provisions of all work provided for in this act shall be- by contract or contracts, let to the lowest bidder or bidders giving the security required by the Superintendent .of Public Works, except such portions thereof as, in the judgment of the Superintendent of Public Works and the State Engineer, cannot be so done to the best interests of the State.” Part of the expense of this work was to be borne by the State, and part by the city of Utica.
On the 12th day of June, 1896, the Superintendent of Public Works gave public notice that sealed proposals would be received at his office on the 24th day of June, 1896, for the letting of com tracts, for furnishing the materials, and doing the work required.
Such notice provided that “ every proposal for said work must be accompanied by a draft or a certified check upon some good banking institution of the city of New York .or Albany, issued by a-National or State bank in good credit within the State, payable at sight to the Superintendent of Public Works, for the amounts ■expressed below as required to be deposited with the bids for the proposed work. The amount of deposit with bid for the super structure will be $1,430; the amount of labor bond required on execution of contract, $4,300.; the amount of bond for the faithful performance of contract, on execution of contract, $7,900. The amount of deposit with hid for the substructure will be $920; the amount of labor bond required on execution of contract, $2,800; the amount of bond for faithful performance of contract, on. execution of contract, $5,000.”
The relator, the Hilton Bridge Construction Company, and the Havana Bridge Works each furnished proposals to do the work, upon. ' blanks apparently furnished by the Superintendent of ..Public Works.
The following is the proposal-of the Hilton Bridge Construction Company, the whole of which, so far as relates to the different items of work, and material and the prices therefor, is set forth in order that the form and manner of the proposals may he understood, to wit:
The controversy arises in this case over the items twenty-four old. piles, or oak piles, and two fixed-overhead foot bridges.
It will be observed that, in the proposal of the Hilton Bridge Construction Company, it reads: Twenty-four oak piles, each $12.50; two fixed overhead foot bridges, each $1,200.
In the proposal of the Havana Bridge Works it reads : Twenty old piles, $20 ; two fixed overhead foot-bridges, $939.40.
No point was made by either party upon the difference in the. bids in the matter of piles, one being named.“ oak” and the other “ old ” piles. No one seems to have been misled.
If the proposal of the Havana Bridge. Works is to be construed as meaning $20 for each of the twenty-four old piles and $939.40 for each overhead foot bridge, then the proposal of the Havana Bridge Works is the highest; if .the bid is to be construed as $20 for all of the twenty-four old piles and $939.40 for both of the overhead foot bridges, then the Havana Bridge Works is the lowest bidder.
The Superintendent of Public Works awarded the contract'to the Havana Bridge Works. The Hilton Bridge Construction Company thereafter, upon a petition, procured an order to show cause at a. Special Term of the Supreme Court why a writ of. peremptory mandamus should not issue against the Superintendent of Public Works, directing him to let to, and enter into a contract with, tlm relator for the doing of the work and furnishing the materials in question, the petition of the relator claiming that it was the lowest bidder therefor, and that it had furnished' with its proposals a certified check as required by said notice.
Upon the return of the order to show cause an affidavit of a clerk-in the office of the Superintendent of Public Works was produced in behalf of the defendant, and a hearing was had upon the petition of the relator and upon such affidavit. In the affidavit of the clerk he sets forth that said proposals or bids were opened during the-, absence of the Superintendent of Public Works, and in the bid written on the blank proposal the Hilton Bridge Construction Company had written over the word “ old ” the word “ oak ” so as to-read “ oak piles,” and on the same line thereof, in the column marked items, had written the word “each,” from which.it would, appear that the word “ each ” was not in the blank proposals. He. further states that he examined the bid of the Havana Bridge-Works with reference to such items and found that it read “twenty-four old piles, $20; ” that deponent thereupon caused said bids to-be computed upon the basis, for the Havana Bridge Works, of' $20 for each pile, and $939.40 for each overhead foot bridge; that the bids were thereafter submitted to the State Engineer and Surveyor, and that it was determined by him and by the Superintendent; of Public Works to telegraph to the Havana Bridge Works in order- to ascertain from them their Understanding of said blank proposals and what was intended by said Havana Bridge Works by their said bid; accordingly, a telegram was sent reading as follows:
“ Albany, N. Y.,-14, 1896.
“ To Havana Bridge Works, Montour Falls, N. Y.:
“In your proposition on Genesee Street bridges, Utica;, is the figure for old piles twenty dollars each or for the lot; also, is the figure for fixed overhead foot bridges, $939.40 each, or for the two?
“GEORGE W. ALDRIDGE,
“ Superintendent of Public WorksP
. That, in response to said telegram, the following dispatch was received: ■
“ July 15, 1896.
“ Hon. George W. Aldridge, Superintendent of Public Works, Albany, N. Y.:
“ Prices named in your telegram are totals for entire items.
“ HAVANA BRIDGE WORKS.”
- Subsequently a letter was received from the Havana Bridge Works confirming their' telegram and asserting that the item of $20 was for the lot of twenty-four old piles, and the item of $939.40 was for both of the overhead foot bridges.
The affiant - also asserts that his computation of -said bid on the basis of $20 for each old pile, and $939.40 for each overhead foot bridge, was'without the authority of the Superintendent of Public Works..
The Special Term denied the application for a mandamus, and in the order denying the motion it is stated that it is denied “ as matter ' ■of law and not as of discretion.” Other facts will be stated in the ■course of the opinion.
Norton Chase, for the appellant.
T. E. Hancock, Attorney-General, and W. E. Kisselburgh, Jr., Deputy Attorney-General, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Merwin, J.:
I am of the opinion that the order should be affirmed. The papers show that 'the contract has been awarded to the. Havana Bridge "Works. The question whether this was properly done should not be determined in a proceeding to which the Havana company is not a party and has no opportunity' of being heard. An award having been made, and still remaining, a writ of mandamus should not be issued to compel an award to another.
It is not clear that the bid of the Havana company, as originally made, was not sufficiently definite to call for the interpretation which was finally put upon it and made it the lower bid.
Assuming, however, that the bid of the Havana company should have been rejected as too indefinite, it does not follow ás matter of law that the relator was entitled to have his bid accepted. The most that the relator would be entitled to, in case the proceeding was appropriate for that purpose, would be to have the bid of the Havana company set aside, and then to require'the State officers either to accept its bid or advertise anew. The State officers had, under the notice, an option to reject any or all bids. With this option outstanding, and which the State officers, in the interest of the State, would have the right and the duty in a proper case to exercise, in case the bid of the relator was the only definite one, it cannot be said that the relator had a legal right to the contract. The basis of a ma.ndam.us is a legal right to- have something done. The relator asks that the State officers be compelled to enter into a contract with it. It does not show a legal right to such contract, and, therefore, the motion was properly denied.
Parker, P. J., and Putnam, J., concurred ; Herrick and Landon, JJ., dissented.