Title: Bartley, Incorporated v. Town of Westlake
Citation: 111 So. 2d 328, 237 La. 413
Docket Number: N/A
State: Louisiana
Issuer: Louisiana Supreme Court
Date: April 27, 1959

111 So. 2d 328 (1959) 237 La. 413 BARTLEY, INCORPORATED, v. TOWN OF WESTLAKE, Louisiana, et al. No. 44498. Supreme Court of Louisiana. April 27, 1959. *329 King, Anderson &amp; Swift, Lake Charles, for plaintiff-appellant. Moss &amp; Graham, Smith &amp; Wise, Lake Charles, McDonald &amp; Buchler, Metairie, for defendants-appellees. HAMLIN, Justice. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the trial court dismissing its suit against defendants; refusing to annul and declare illegal and void the bid and contract awarded to Port City Construction Co., Inc. for Project No. 1, Sewage Treatment Plant and Appurtenances, Town of Westlake, Louisiana; denying a permanent injunction to enjoin the Town of Westlake, Louisiana, Charles M. Carroll, Mayor of Westlake, Sewerage District No. 2 of *330 the Town of Westlake, Louisiana, and Port City Construction Co., from executing or consummating the contract, supra; and, refusing to recognize plaintiff as low bidder on Project No. 1, supra, and award the contract for such work to it as the only legally qualified bidder. On October 13, 1958, the Town of Westlake (hereinafter referred to as "Westlake") adopted the following resolution: "/s/ Mrs. T. S. Megason "Clerk" The above resolution recites that the Mayor, Carroll, voted in its favor. This resolution was thereafter corrected by a resolution passed on October 24, 1958, wherein it was stated that C. M. Carroll, Mayor, had not voted on October 13, 1958 for the awarding of the contract, supra, to Port City Construction Company, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as "Port City"). *331 The contract between Westlake and Port City was signed on December 13, 1958. Prior to that date, Bartley, Inc., the only other bidder on the contract for Project No. 1, instituted the present litigation on October 31, 1958. It alleged that the bid of Port City was null and void, because Charles M. Carroll, Mayor of Westlake, was an officer and stockholder of Port City and therefore interested in the instant contract, and the consideration for the contract for the construction of Project No. 1 was to be paid from the Treasury of Westlake. The basis of plaintiff's charge is LSA-R.S. 33:321-481 (commonly known as the "Lawrason Act"), which provide for "Local Government," "Mayor and Board of Aldermen."[1] In LSA-R.S. 33:381, municipal officers are listed as a mayor, aldermen, a marshal, a tax collector, a clerk, and a street commissioner. LSA-R.S. 33:385 recites: The gist of the above charge is in effect that under LSA-R.S. 33:385 Westlake could not accept the bid of Port City because the Mayor of Westlake was a stockholder and officer of said corporation. In rejecting plaintiff's demands, the trial court was of the opinion that the instant contract was governed by the Public Works Act, Act 73 of 1926, LSA-R.S. 38:2211 through LSA-R.S. 38:2217, inclusive. In written reasons denying plaintiff's application for rehearing, it stated: *332 "The Court is of the opinion that the Public Works Contract, [LSA-] R.S. 38:2211, has ample safeguards to protect the public in seeing that their funds are properly spent." Appellant properly states that the principal questions presented for our determination are: The preponderance of the evidence reflects that Mayor Charles M. Carroll did not vote at the meeting of the Town of Westlake on October 13, 1958, and it is admitted by all litigants that he is a minority stockholder of Port City and serves as its secretary.[2] Therefore, only questions of law are posed for our consideration. The Public Works Act reads: The purpose of the above statute was set forth in Boxwell v. Department of Highways, 203 La. 760, 14 So. 2d 627, 631, as follows: Defendants contend that the "Public Policy" of the State is controlled by LSA-R.S. 14:140[3] and LSA-R.S. 38:2211-2217. In its brief Westlake argues: The fact that the Lawrason Act and the Public Works Act, supra, are both part of the Revised Statutes of 1950 certainly manifests the Legislature's intention that both laws be given effect, if possible. LSA-R.S. 33:321 et seq. (the Lawrason Act) is a special act and LSA-R.S. 38:2211-2217 (the Public Works Act) is a general law, with related subject matter. In State ex rel. Womack v. Jones, 201 La. 637, 10 So. 2d 213, 217, we held: As a guide we have the settled jurisprudence that "a general statute does not have the effect of repealing a special law upon the same subject matter unless the intent to repeal is so plain and evident that it cannot be doubted." State ex rel. Warren Realty Co. v. City of New Orleans, 226 La. 297, 76 So. 2d 308, 310. In Wenk v. Anisman, 211 La. 641, 30 So. 2d 567, 571, where we held that Act 209 of 1932, which permitted the purchase of a minor's property by any co-owner, did not have the effect of repealing the articles of the Revised Civil Code prohibiting a tutor from purchasing his ward's property, we said: Appellees are in error in their argument that the Lawrason Act, supra, was repealed by the Public Works Act, supra. These acts can stand together and are not repugnant to each other. The Lawrason Act sets forth the capacities of bidders on certain enumerated contracts and prohibits municipal officers from bidding on contracts to be paid for out of the treasury of the municipality. Its provisions may produce harsh results at times; but, such matters are for the legislature, not the courts, to correct. State v. Winfield, 222 La. 157, 62 So. 2d 258; Jackson v. Coxe, 208 La. 715, 23 So. 2d 312; State ex rel. Cruse v. La Salle Parish School Board, La.App., 35 So. 2d 608. The Public Works Act sets forth how bids must be offered and accepted for public works by public corporations and political subdivisions. Its provisions have no effect on the capacity of bidders on such projects. We conclude that there is no conflict between the two acts. Appellees have urged that the entire price of the contract herein involved will not be paid from the Treasury of Westlake. Mr. Carroll testified that the Town is to receive a $75,000 grant from the Federal Government and funds from the issuance of bonds; he further testified: There is no merit to the above contention made by appellees, because the evidence shows that the actual payment will eventually be made from the treasury of the municipality. We conclude that the first question propounded by appellant must be answered negatively. Westlake could not legally enter *335 into the instant contract; the bid of Port City and the contract between Westlake and Port City signed on December 13, 1958 are, therefore, invalid. Cf. McManus v. Scheele, 116 La. 72, 40 So. 535; Hankins v. Police Jury, Natchitoches Parish, 152 La. 1000, 95 So. 102. As to the second question, we have concluded, supra, that the contract is not valid, and we are convinced from the evidence in the record that the Mayor did not vote at the meeting held on October 13, 1958. The third question is also to be answered negatively. The advertisement for bids filed in evidence contains the following provision: LSA-R.S. 38:2212 empowers the governing authority of a public corporation to reject any and all bids. Had Westlake not accepted the illegal bid of Port City, we do not know whether it would have accepted the bid of Bartley, Incorporated. This is a matter within the discretion of Westlake. Hankins v. Police Jury, Natchitoches Parish, 152 La. 1000, 95 So. 102. For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the lower court is reversed, annulled and set aside. It is now ordered, adjudged and decreed That the bid submitted by Port City Construction Co., Inc. for the construction of Project No. 1, Sewage Treatment Plant and Appurtenances, for the Town of Westlake, Louisiana, is null and void; That the resolutions adopted by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen of the Town of Westlake, Louisiana, at its meetings on October 13 and 24, 1958, are null and void, insofar as they purport to accept the said bid and award to Port City Construction Co., Inc. the contract for the construction of Project No. 1, Sewage Treatment Plant and Appurtenances, for the Town of Westlake, Louisiana, and authorize and direct the Mayor of the Town of Westlake, Louisiana, to sign a written contract with Port City Construction Co., Inc. therefor, and insofar as they purport to ratify and confirm the action of said Mayor and Board of Aldermen of the Town of Westlake, Louisiana, with respect to the award and execution of a contract with Port City Construction Co., Inc. for the construction of Project No. 1, Sewage Treatment Plant and Appurtenances, for the Town of Westlake, Louisiana; That the written contract signed by the Town of Westlake, Louisiana, and Port City Construction Co., Inc. on December 13, 1958, for the construction of Project No. 1, Sewage Treatment Plant and Appurtenances, for the Town of Westlake, Louisiana, is illegal, null and void; That a permanent injunction issue herein, enjoining the Town of Westlake, Louisiana, Charles M. Carroll, as Mayor of the Town of Westlake, Louisiana, Sewerage District No. 2 of the Town of Westlake, Louisiana, and Port City Construction Co., Inc., their officers, agents and all other persons, firms or corporations acting or claiming to act in their behalf, from taking any steps towards consummation of the written contract signed by the Town of Westlake, Louisiana, and Port City Construction Co., Inc. on December 13, 1958, for the construction of Project No. 1, Sewage Treatment Plant and Appurtenances, for the Town of Westlake, Louisiana; That the demands of Bartley, Incorporated, to be recognized as the low bidder for the construction of Project No. 1, Sewage Treatment Plant and Appurtenances, for the Town of Westlake, Louisiana, and to be awarded the contract for such work, are rejected and dismissed. All costs are to be paid by appellees. McCALEB, J., concurs in the result. SIMON, J., concurs in the result decreed. [1] These sections provide for the government of municipalitiessuch as Westlakenot governed by special legislative charters. [2] Mr. Ralph E. Managan, President of Port City, testified that Mayor Carroll owned ten and a half shares of the 413 shares of Port City and was secretary of the corporation. [3] LSA-R.S. 14:140, a criminal statute, recites in part that public fraud is committed "(2) When any member of any public board, body, or commission charged with the custody, control or expenditure of any public funds votes for or uses his influence to secure any expenditure of such public funds to himself, or to any partnership of which he is a member or to any corporation of which he is an officer, director, or stockholder." The present matter contains no allegations of fraud, and the question of fraud is not posed for our consideration. [4] The argument of Port City is substantially the same.