Case Name: ACH et v. STATE ex BRIELMAIER
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1932-07-29
Citations: 13 Ohio Law Abs. 384
Docket Number: 
Parties: ACH et v STATE ex BRIELMAIER
Judges: LEVINE, J (8th Dist), sitting in 1st Dist.
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 13
Pages: 384–384

Head Matter:
ACH et v STATE ex BRIELMAIER
Ohio Appeals, 1st Dist, Hamilton Co
Decided July 29, 1932
Robert N. Gorman, Prosecuting Attorney, Cincinnati, and Leonard H. Freiberg, Cincinnati, for plaintiffs in error.
Riesenberg, Cohen & Steltenpohl, Cincinnati, for defendants in error.
LEVINE, J (8th Dist), sitting in 1st Dist.

Opinion:
ROSS, PJ.
This is a proceeding in error from the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County, wherein judgment was rendered in favor of Leo J. Brielmaier, the relator.
Bids were taken by the commissioners of Hamilton County for the erection of a building to be used as a road repair station. The lowest bid contained the following item:
Dollars Cents Prices in figures in this
Structural Steel column
48,000 lbs. per lb. Three quarter. 0.03%
It is contended by the relator that this bid is so indefinite, vague, and ambiguous as to be wholly void. We do not find any difficulty in holding otherwise. If this were a proceeding upon the bid, certainly by all rules of construction the contractor would have been required to perform upon the basis of 3% cents per pound structural steel. The mere fact that the bidder left the words "and a" out of the phrase unquestionably intended, "three and a quarter," cannot be used by any one to inject ambiguity where none exists. The figures following, "0.03%," are obvious and consistent. The words are not "three quarters," but "three quarter."
Even if the language to the bid needed interpretation, we feel that to such an extent the county commissioners are empowered to construe the meaning of the terms used in the instant case.
There being no dispute as to the facts, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County is reversed, and judgment is entered here for the respondents, the plaintiffs in error here.
CUSHING and LEVINE, JJ, concur.