Case Name: Joseph Walsh v. The Mayor, etc., of the City of New York
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1887-11-21
Citations: 11 N.Y. St. Rep. 728
Docket Number: 
Parties: Joseph Walsh v. The Mayor, etc., of the City of New York.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 11
Pages: 728–731

Head Matter:
Joseph Walsh v. The Mayor, etc., of the City of New York.
(New York Superior Court, General Term,
Filed November 21, 1887.)
New York (city of) dock department—Bid for work—Check must BE DEPOSITED WITH OFFICER OF DEPARTMENT.
The department of docks of the city of New York having advertised for bids for building and repairing certain piers, the plaintiff deposited in the “estimate-box” an envelope containing both his bid and certified check. Held, that the check should have been exhibited to and deposited with the commissioner of docks, or some officer of his appointed to receive it, and upon its being found correct the bid alone should have been deposited in the "estimate-box.” The check having been deposited in the estimate-box, the bid was irregular and properly rejected.
Motion by each party for judgment upon a verdict directed for the plaintiff by the court, subject to the opinion of the general term.
A verdict in favor of the plaintiff was directed by the court at trial term, subject to the opinion of the court at general term.
The following are the main facts appearing in the evidence:
The department of docks, in June, 1881, advertised in the City Becord, inviting bids for (1) building pier, new fifty-seven, North river, and (2) repairing six piers on North river.
Under this advertisement three estimates were received for building pier, new fifty-seven, N. it., as follows: Joseph Walsh, $59,000, with a certified check for $750 on the-Metropolitan National Bank; John Gillies, $25,000, with no check or money; Boss & Sanford, $53,000, with a certified check on the Bank of North America (not a national bank).
Two estimates were also received for repairing the six piers on the North river, as follows: Joseph Walsh, $30,000, with a certified check for $250 on the Metropolitan National Bank; Boss & Sanford, $22,500, with a certified check for $250 on the Bank of North America (not a national bank).
The board of docks, on July 29, 1881, decided to reject all the bids as irregular and to re-advertise the works in question.
Walsh’s checks in both instances were enclosed in the same envelope as contained his bid, and the envelope thus containing both the check and the bid were deposited in the “estimate box.”
This is stated to have been done by the direction of one Whitney, a clerk in the dock department.
The function of the “estimate box” is defined in the ordinance. Section 3, article 1, chapter 7 of the Bevised Ordinances, provides as"follows:
“The several departments and officers empowered bylaw to make contracts on the part of the corporation shall issue proposals for estimates therefor, and advertise the same as provided by law. There shall be kept by each of said departments an appropriate box, to be designated “estimate-box,” with a proper opening in the top thereof, to receive estimates for which proposals have been issued. Such box shall be kept locked, except at such times as it may be necessary to open the same to examine and decide upon said estimate, and the key thereof shall be retained by the head of the department. It shall be the duty of the head of the department to deposit in said box all estimates duly presented to him for work to be done under the direction of the department. It shall be the duty of the head of the department to deposit in said box all estimates duly presented to him for work to be done under the direction of the department immediately on the receipt thereof by him.”
It was conceded that contracts for both the works in question were subsequently awarded to parties other than the plaintiff.
John C. Shaw, for pl’ff; John J. Townsend, Jr., for def’ts.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
—This case presents narrow questions of statutory construction. The decision of The People, etc., v. Thompson (33 Hun, 661, and the MSS. opinion of Judge Haight ), should be followed as a precedent. Mr. Whitney, incorrectly, according to the case cited, directed what the plaintiff should do with the check, and the plaintiff acquiesced in the incorrect decision.
Motion by defendant for judgment granted with costs.
THE PEOPLE ex rel. ABRAM DOWDNEY, Resp't, v. HUBERT O. THOMPSON, Commissioner of Public Works, App'lt.
(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department, Decided May 29, 1884.)
Appeal from an order directing that a peremptory writ of mandamus issue,
Morgan J. O'Brien, for resp't; George P. Andrews, for app'lt.
Haight, J.—On the 7th day of June, 1881, the commissioner of public works of the city of New York, advertised for proposals for constructing certain sewers in that city. The proposals were inclosed in an envelope and deposited in an estimate-box kept in the commissioner's office for that purpose. On the 20th day of June, 1881, the proposals so deposited in the estimate-box were opened and were as follows: William Everard, amount, $39,721; C. 0. Reed, amount, $35,370; J. E. Nierney, amount, $31,950.50; James Baird, amount, $26,614; John Slattery, amount, $28,500; Joshua D. Miner, amount, $27,107; Abram Dowdney, amount, $25,965.25; C. J. McKim, amount, $25,655.
Each of these proposals had inclosed with it and sealed in the envelope a certified check for $600, on a national bank iriitlie city of New York, payable to the order of the comptroller, except C. J. McKim's. With his proposal was inclosed a certified check for $600 drawn upon a state bank instead of a national bank. The certified checks were not exhibited to or deposited with the commissioner of public works, or any officer of his department, prior to being •deposited in the estimate-box sealed as aforesaid. Aterwards, and on the 3d day of August, 1881, the commissioner rejected the proposals and returned them with the certified checks inclosed to the respective bidders, and readvertised the work., G. J. McKim was the lowest bidder, but his bid could not be accepted for the reason that the certified check inclosed was drawn upon a state bank instead of a national bank. The relator was the next lowest bidder and would be entitled to have the contract for the work awarded to him, provided, the proceedings were regular and in accordance with the provisions of the statute pertaining thereto. The question presented is whether or not it was the duty of the bidders to exhibit to and deposit with the commissioner, or some officer of his department, a certified check, or in lieu thereof the money, .at the time of depositing the proposals in the estimate-box. Upon this question we have examined with care the opinion of William O. Whitney, Esq., counsel to the corporation, dated August 3, 1881, and we are of the opinion that we should concur in the views therein expressed.
It is contended on the part of the respondent that the learned corporation counsel, in his opinion, overlooked the provisions of the statute providing that such checks or money accompany the proposal. This provision must be considered and construed in connection with the other provisions of the section. Those provisions provide that such department or officer is authorized and directed to require as a condition precedent to the reception or consideration of any proposal, the deposit with such department or officer of a certified check upon one of the national banks of the said city of New York, drawn to the order of the comptroller, or of money, etc.
It will be observed that the deposit is to be made with such department or officer, and that the deposit is a condition precedent to the reception or consideration of the proposal. What is meant by the term department or officer? We can hardly believe that by the term' department or officer it was the intenten tian to permit a deposit to be made in a desk drawer or box in the office Such interpretation "would endanger the rights of the depositors, as well as those of the city. It appears to us that the true meaning intended is that the deposit is to be made with the commissioner or otiier officer of the department. _ Under this interpretation the various provisions of the section are consistent with each other The check or money must accompany the proposal. As a condition precedent to the reception of the proposal, the check or money must be deposited with the commissioner or an officer of his department, and on such •deposit being made the proposal may be received and deposited in the estimate box.
The ordinance of the city directing that an estimate box be kept by the commissioner of public works, and that the proposals be sealed and deposited in t:iaf box, does not provide that the deposits of certified checks or money should •be made in the box. It would hardly be considered a safe place for the keeping of such deposits.
Order reversed and order for a peremptory writ of mandamus denied with fifty dollars costs and disbursements.
Daniels and Davis, JJ., concur.