Am. Water Corp. v. Mayor And Council of Borough of Florham Park

• Decision Date: 31 October 1927
• Docket Number: No. 268.,268.
• Citation: 139 A. 169
• Parties: AMERICAN WATER CORPORATION v. MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF BOROUGH OF FLORHAM PARK et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

139 A. 169

AMERICAN WATER CORPORATION

v. MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF BOROUGH OF FLORHAM PARK et al.

No. 268.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Oct. 31, 1927.

Certiorari by the American Water Corporation against the Mayor and Council of the Borough of Florham Park, N. J., and another. On rule to show cause why writ should not issue. Order to be entered bringing up proceedings awarding contract and setting aside award.

Argued May term, 1927, before TRENCHARD, KALISCH, and KATZENBACH, JJ.

Hopkins & Herr, of Hoboken, for prosecutor.

Robert E. Burke, of Morristown, for respondent Mayor and Council of Borough of Florham Park, N. J.

Hobart & Minard, of Newark, for respondent Layne-New York Co.

PER CURIAM. This case is before us on a rule to show cause why a writ of certiorari should not be allowed to review three resolutions passed by the mayor and council of the borough of Florham Park at a meeting of the borough council held on April 4th, 1927. These resolutions refused to award a contract for the digging of a well and installing of a pump and appurtenances to the American Water Corporation, rejected the bid of that company, and awarded the contract to the Layne-New York Company.

The case by stipulation is to be treated as though a writ of certiorari had been granted. The proofs taken under the rule to show cause present all the testimony relative to the case. Reasons have been filed by the prosecutor, and are printed in the record.

The borough of Florham Park in the county of Morris desired to improve its water supply. An engineer of high standing was consulted. He prepared plans and specifications for the improvements desired. Bids were advertised for. Two bids were submitted, one of the American Water Corporation (the prosecutor), computed by the engineer to amount to $19,400, and one of the Layne-New York Company, which was computed by the engineer to amount to $22,350. These bids were opened and read at a council meeting held on February 23, 1927. They were laid over for further consideration. The mayor and members of the council in the meantime visited installations made by the respective bidders. On April 3, 1927, a Sunday afternoon, the matter was informally discussed by the mayor and members of council. The engineer of the borough was present. He said that in his opinion both bids were too high, and recommended that both be rejected, and that the borough re-advertise the work. This suggestion was not satisfactory to the mayor and council because of the delay incident to readvertising. It was then suggested that the engineer write a letter to the prosecutor asking if it would be willing to accept a contract from the borough to do the work as outlined in the specifications subject to certain conditions, not given in the specifications, for $17,000. This was done. At the same time a similar letter was written and sent to the Layne-New York Company. In replies each bidder agreed to do the work for $17,000. In the answer of the American Water Corporation it was stated by them that, as their bid was the lowest, they felt that they should have the contract. The Layne-New York Company in its answer suggested an extension of time within which the work should be done.

The borough took no action on the letters and replies thereto. At a meeting of the council held on April 4th three resolutions were introduced. The first was to accept the bid of the American Water Corporation. This was lost by a vote of four to three. The second was that the bid of the American Water Corporation be rejected. This was passed by a vote of four to...