Adolphus v. Baskin
| Decision Date | 28 March 1928 |
| Citation | 95 Fla. 603,116 So. 225 |
| Parties | ADOLPHUS v. BASKIN et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Suit by G. Adolphus against H. H. Baskin and others, constituting the City Commission of Clearwater, for an injunction. From an order sustaining a demurrer and dissolving a temporary restraining order and dismissing the bill, the complainant appeals.
Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court
Reasonable exercise of power by municipal governmental authorities is always required. The reasonable exercise of power by municipal governmental authorities is always required as a matter of public policy and fidelity to public trust.
Unreasonable action under color of authority by municipal authorities that materially affects substantial rights of persons and taxpayers is illegal; municipality's letting contract for public building to higher bidder, although lower bidder was responsible party, ready, willing, and able to construct building properly should be enjoined in taxpayer's suit. Unreasonable action taken under color of authority that materially affects substantial rights of persons and of taxpayers is contrary to the principles upon which our system of government is founded.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Pinellas County; O. L Dayton, judge.
J. C Davant, of Clearwater, for appellant.
M. H Jones, McMullen & McMullen and Kelly & Casler, all of Clearwater, for appellees.
The city commission of the city of Clearwater, proposing to let a contract for the erection of a certain municipal building and jail addition at a designated place, procured competent architects to prepare plans and specifications for such building, and, acting through the city manager, published a notice calling for bids for the construction of said building to conform to the plans and specifications so prepared and on file. The notice required certain conditions to be met and certain things to be done as incident to the filing of bids to erect the building. Some eight different persons, firms, and corporations presented bids for the construction of the building according to the plans and specifications referred to.
It is alleged: 'That B. F. Walker & Son were able, efficient, and responsible contractors, and that they met all conditions required to be met by contractors in and about presenting their bid, and that they bid and offered to construct the building in accordance with the plans and specifications for the sum of $45,960. That among others bidding to construct the building in accordance with plans and specifications, as required, was one George F. Gillespie who bid and offered to construct the building according to the plans and specifications for the sum of $53,221. That although the bid of Gillespie was $7,261, or more than 15 per cent. above the bid submitted by B. F. Walker & Son, the city commission awarded the contract to Gillespie and entered upon the official minutes of the commission that the contract was awarded to Gillespie because 'he is a local man, will use local contractors and local labor, and will patronize local supply houses.'
A taxpayer, feeling aggrieved at this action by the city commission, filed a bill to enjoin the city commission from making and entering into and from signing and executing a contract with Gillespie for the doing and performing of the work...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robert G. Lassiter & Co. v. Taylor
... ... therefore illegal and void. Anderson v. Fuller, 51 ... Fla. 380, 41 So. 684, 688, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1026, 120 Am ... St. Rep. 170; Adolphus v. Baskin, 95 Fla. 603, 116 ... So. 225; 19 R. C. L. 1064-1071 (§ 357, note 18); 44 C.J ... 326-328; Staebler & Gregg v. Town of Anchorage, 186 ... ...
-
Marriott Corp. v. Metropolitan Dade County
...of power by municipal governmental authorities . . . as a matter of public policy and fidelity to public trust." Adolphus v. Baskin, 95 Fla. 603, 116 So. 225 (1928). The standard to be applied in deciding whether the decision was exercised arbitrarily is delineated in City of Pensacola v. K......
-
City of Port Orange v. Leechase Corp., 81-957
...and of the "check and balance" concept of our form of government. This distinction at once distinguishes and explains Adolphus v. Baskin, 95 Fla. 603, 116 So. 225 (1928), and Marriott Corp. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 383 So.2d 662 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), although the co-existence of the legis......
-
Milander v. Department of Water & Sewer of City of Hialeah, 84-300
...see Schloesser v. Dill, 383 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), Milander had acquired no enforceable rights. Compare, e.g., Adolpus v. Baskin, 95 Fla. 603, 116 So. 225 (1928) (when contract subject to competitive bidding is awarded, most favorable bid may not ordinarily be disregarded); Marriott......