Court Opinion

ID: 6662398
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 21:03:08.920415+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:00:13.045648
License: Public Domain

Sedwick, J.,
concurring.
When the use of a patented article greatly increases the cost of an improvement, the officers and the property owners interested will not use such articles unless they are very certain that because of the superiority of the im*139provement the additional expense is money well invested. Undoubtedly it rests with them to determine that question, .and not for the courts. I do not think that we ought to compel the property owners affected and the public officers to adopt our notions as to the advisability of using a patented article in paving their streets. It appears, however, that some of the bidders were not aware of the fact that this patented article could be obtained at a regular price uniform to all desiring to use it, and that competition was affected by that fact.' Although the officers appear to have acted in good faith and without fraud, it is not so clear that the successful bidder did not get a larger price for the work than he could have obtained if the price he paid for the mixture had been know to all bidders and they had the unequivocal information that they could obtain the mixture at the same price. I am not satisfied that there must be positive evidence of fraud to invalidate this contract.'