Court Opinion

ID: 3617747
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-06 00:00:27.639371+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:33:00.072225
License: Public Domain

I concur in the result upon two grounds: 1. The plaintiff had no right to recover damages from the defendant for breach of contract, because there was no contract, as is clearly shown by Judge CHASE in his opinion.
2. The remedy of the plaintiff was by mandamus to compel the execution of a contract in accordance with the statute. He was the lowest responsible bidder; he tendered adequate security and the statute commanded the common council, unless they rejected all bids, to award the contract to him. (People ex rel.Coughlin v. Gleason, 121 N.Y. 631.)
The rejection of his bid and the acceptance of one higher by several thousand dollars was arbitrary and illegal. It was presumptively corrupt, for favoritism is one form of corruption. For such a violation of law by those who represent the city there should be a remedy against the city and, as it cannot be by way of damages for breach of contract it should be by mandamus. Otherwise competition may be stifled through the want of inducement to bid for public work.
The opinion in People ex rel. Lunney v. Campbell (72 N.Y. 496), in so far as it declares that there is no remedy by mandamus in such cases, was obiter and should be disregarded. At least, if the court is of the opinion that mandamus will not lie, a suggestion should be made to the legislature, for the public as well as the lowest bidder need protection. In many cases the public can be adequately protected only through the lowest bidder. According to the law, as apparently left by the decision about to be made, the city is helpless because it is in the hands of the wrongdoers, and if the lowest bidder has no remedy, there is no one impelled by duty or self-interest to prevent the violation of an important provision, common to nearly all municipal charters, designed to protect the public, but now practically useless.
CULLEN, Ch. J., HAIGHT, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT and HISCOCK, JJ., concur with CHASE, J.; VANN, J., concurs in result in opinion.
Judgment affirmed. *Page 413