Court Opinion

ID: 9816498
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 03:12:19.164182+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:56.941387
License: Public Domain

On Application for rehearing.

Per Curiam.

This cause was submitted on motion to reconsider our original opinion and decision herein.
It is urged that we did not discuss and, therefore, failed to give due consideration to the provisions of Section 2364, General Code (Section 153.52, Revised Code), and particularly the exception at the end of the section. It is urged that although Section 2364, General Code, as amended, and Sections 2314-1 and 2314-2, General Code, were enacted at the same time, Section 2364 is in a dominant position and gives awarding-authorities discretion to consider and award on combination bids. The language of Section 2364, General Code, is substantially the same, but for the exception, as that employed in Section 794 of an act of April 13, 1888, 85 Ohio Laws, 218. The section (2364) inferentially authorizing awards to bidders for the job as a whole or for more than one kind of work or materials then carries this language:
“The provisions of this and the preceding two sections shall not apply to the erection of buildings and *493other structures of a less cost than ten thousand dollars, except as provided in Sections 2314-1 and 2314-2 of tlie General Code.”
It is urged with much conviction and force.that this exception nullifies all the provisions of Sections 2314-1 and 2314-2, General Code, as they affect contracts in the amount of $10,000 or more.
We recognize, as did the Attorney General in his opinion of December 1933, that the language under consideration may be given such construction.
It is our opinion, however, that the exception at the end of Section 2364, General Code, was unnecessary to assure the application of Sections 2314-1 and 2314-2, General Code, to bids, specifications and contracts only coming within their terms, at a cost of not less than $1,000 or more than $10,000. These new sections and Section 2364, an amended section, were enacted at the same time and must be presumed to serve the purposes therein indicated. The subject matter of the sections covers different types or classes of construction work. Section 2364 is general, as to awarding authorities affected, the construction work to be performed, and the material to be furnished. Sections 2314-1 and 2314-2 are limited to construction to be let by the state and to a restricted class of artisans and types of work. All three can be given application; Section 2364 and the preceding sections, 2362 and 2363, as general legislation and Sections 2314-1 and 2314-2, as special legislation.
The exception was, in probability, carried into Section 2364 to avoid any question as to the application of Section 2314-2 to contracts between $1,000 and $10,000. The exception does not purport to restrict the provisions of Section 2314-2 to contracts of $10,000 or less. It is not a limitation on Section 2314-2, but a recognition that it applies to contracts of less than $10,000, although Section 2364 is so limiting. *494It is highly probable that if the Legislature had intended to restrict Section 2314-2, as contended by appellant, it would have carried such limitation into the language of that section and not reached it by indirection in Section 2364.
The application for reconsideration will be denied.

Application denied.

Wiseman, P. J., Miller and Hornbeck, JJ., concur.