Moffett, Hodgkins Clarke Company v. City of Rochester

• Decision Date: 21 May 1900
• Docket Number: No. 217,217
• Parties: MOFFETT, HODGKINS, & CLARKE COMPANY, Petitioner , v. CITY OF ROCHESTER, George W. Aldridge, William W. Barnard, and John W. Schroth, Composing the Executive Board of the City of Rochester
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

178 U.S. 373

20 S.Ct. 957

44 L.Ed. 1108

MOFFETT, HODGKINS, & CLARKE COMPANY, Petitioner,

v CITY OF ROCHESTER, George W. Aldridge, William W. Barnard, and John W. Schroth, Composing the Executive Board of the City of Rochester.

No. 217.

Argued April 10, 11, 1900.

Decided May 21, 1900.

This suit grows out of alleged errors in the proposals of the complainant for the execution of certain improvements conducted by the city of Rochester, N. Y.

The proposals of the complainant were accepted, but it declined to enter into a contract in accordance therewith, on the grounds hereafter stated, and the city, it is claimed, threatened to enforce the bond given with the proposals.

The bill prays for a reformation of the proposals to conform to the asserted intention in making them and their execution as reformed, or their rescission. Also an injunction against the officers of the city declaring complainant in default, its bond forfeited or enforced.

The substance of the bill is that the city of Rochester, through its proper executive board, determined to make improvements and extensions in the city's waterworks, and, among other things, to construct a masonry conduit for a distance of 12,000 feet from Hemlock lake northward, and proposed to enter into a contract therefor. The contract was known as contract No. 1.

Also, to construct a riveted steel pipe conduit 38 inches or 40 inches in diameter, commencing at the north end of the masonry conduit, and terminating at Mount Hope reservoir, in the city; length, about 140,000 feet. The contract was known as contract No. 2.

Voluminous specifications were prepared by the city, in printed form, aggregating about 300 printed pages elaborately specifying, with infinite detail, the requirements of the executive board, the method in which the work was to be pefo rmed, the character of the materials required to be furnished, and the tests to which the materials were to be subjected. A copy of the schedule, with other schedules, was attached to the bill.

On December 10, 1892, public notice was given to contractors that proposals would be received for such work until 12 o'clock noon of December 23, 1892, at which time the bids were to be publicly opened by the chairman of the executive board.

The complainant was a contractor having an office in New York, and employed engineers to prepare proposals of the character contemplated by the city of Rochester, and complainant's officers were engaged in important and distracting occupations, and connected with other business which required them to delegate the duties ordinarily performed by them in connection with the work, such as described, to their subordinates. The agents of complainants, though they exercised due diligence, were unable to procure the forms of the proposals for such contracts until on or about the 15th of December, 1892, and its engineer proceeded to Rochester on the 20th of December, 1892, having attempted in the meantime to familiarize himself with the terms of such contracts, and there conferred with the engineers of the city, visited the line of the proposed conduit, and proceeded with the preparation of the proposals of the contracts Nos. 1 and 2.

The labor devolving upon him in the period of time allowed him for preparing the proposals made him nervous and confused, and in transcribing the figures prepared by him he accidentally made certain clerical errors.

Contract No. 2 submitted for consideration two routes, over 8,000 feet of the 140,000 of the proposed steel conduit. They were respectively designated in the proposals and specifications route 'A' and route 'B,' and the city reserved the right of electing either of them, and further electing to require a 38-inch pipe or a 40-inch pipe to be furnished by contractors.

Route A was located in alluvial flats through which the creek meanders, and involved several crossings of its existing and former channels. Route B was located wholly west of the creek, and required the construction of a tunnel with the necessary shafts, inlet and overflow chambers, manholes, and their appurtenances.

The specifications of route A involved sixty-one different items and quantities of work and materials, route B seventy-five. Among the items of route B was that known as 'd,' and described in the specifications as follows:

'For all earth excavations in open trenches or pits, for the masonry and pipe conduit, entrance and overflow chambers, gate vaults, blow offs, pipe overflows, bridges, railroad crossings, creek crossings, and culverts carried under said conduit, including bracing and sheeting, back filling of trenches, and masonry, making embankments, and other final disposal of the excavated material with haul of 1,000 feet or less, bailing and draining and all incidental work.'

That item in route A was in precisely the same language, and the quantity of excavation contemplated by said items was 184,000 cubic feet of earth, and referred to precisely the same work. The complainant and its engineer intended to bid for said work the sum of 70 cents per cubic yard, and which sum was a fair and reasonable price for the work, and such sum was inserted in the proposal for route A, but by accident and mistake 50 cents was inserted in the proposal for route B, and the price intended to be proposed therefor was some $36,800. The sum of 50 cents per cubic yard was wholly insufficient price for such work. The proposal in route B also contained an item in the following language, to wit: "h.' For all earth excavation in tunnel, including all necessary bracing, timbering, lighting, ventilating, removal and back filling and other final disposal of the excavated material with haul of 1,000 feet or less, pumping, bailing, and draining and all incidental work.'

The defendants' engineer estimated the quantity of excavation uner this item at 2,000 cubic yards, and it was intended to charge for such work $15 per cubic yard, which was a fair and reasonable charge. In haste and confusion the engineer who is extremely nearsighted, in transcribing his figures, by accident and mistake inserted the sum of $1.50 per cubic yard, which was grossly inadequate and far below what would be the actual cost the work under the most favorable circumstances. The difference between the bid as inserted and that which was intended to be inserted was the sum of $27,000.

A bond was required with proposals in the penal sum of $90,000, conditioned upon the performance of the work if the bid should be accepted and the making of the contract with the city in accordance with the notice to contractors. Complainant executed the bond with Henry D. Lyman and the American Surety Company as sureties, but at the time of its execution the proposal annexed thereto was entirely in blank, and in the time which elapsed between the time the bond was taken to the city and the presentation of the proposals it was impossible to insert in the pamphlet containing the bond the proposals for the work contemplated by contracts Nos. 1 and 2, or either of them.

The prices were inserted in other and different pamphlets of the same general character, but were not signed or in any way executed by complainant or by any of its officers. The pamphlets containing the bond and the pamphlet containing the proposals were placed in a single package.

The complainant was led to believe by the defendants and their officers that, although the masonry conduit and the riveted steel conduit were separately described, they constituted a continuous piece of work, and any person bidding upon both sections whose bid was lower in the agreegate than any other for the same work should be awarded the contract. With this understanding and for the purpose of making a single proposition for the entire work, complainant deposited the package containing the proposals for the work upon both sections with the executive board. The notice to contractors provided that every bid for the masonry conduit should be indorsed 'Proposal for performing contract No. 1, Rochester Waterworks Conduit,' and that every bid for the riveted steel pipe conduit should be inclosed in a sealed envelope and indorsed 'Proposal for performing of contract No. 2, Rochester Waterworks Conduit.' COMPLAINANT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE PROVIsiOns, but addressed its proposals in one package to the executive board. The proposals were immediately opened by the chairman of the board and declared informal, and not in compliance with the requirements of the board, but they were nevertheless read together with other proposals. That for line B, in contract No. 2, was read by the clerk in the presence of the members of the board before any other proposals for work on said line were read, and immediately upon reading item 'd,' relating to earth excavation in open trenches, the engineer of complainant, who prepared the proposals, informed the board that the price of 50 cents per cubic yard was a clerical error, and that it was the intention to charge 70 cents per cubic yard, the same price charged for the identical work on line A.

There were six bidders on contract No. 1, including complainant. Its bid was $473,790. The lowest bidder was W. H. Jones & Son, whose bid was $262,518.

The bids on contract No. 2, with items, were tabulated in a statement and annexed to the bill.

The complainant's bid on earth excavation, in open trench on route A, was 70 cents per cubic yard. The other bids ranged from 75 cents to 85 cents.

For the same work on route B complainant's bid was 50 cents per cubic yard. The other bids from 75 cents to 85 cents.

The complainant's bid for earth excavations in tunnel upon route B, contract No. 2, was $1.50 per cubic yard. The other bids were, respectively, $12 and $15.

The complainant's aggregate bid for work on route B was $857,552.50. The lowest was $1,130,195, that of Whitmre , Rauber, & Co.

If complainant was allowed the amount of its error, viz., $63,800, its proposal for route...