Andrews v. Board of Commissioners of Ada County

• Decision Date: 28 December 1900
• Parties: ANDREWS v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF ADA COUNTY
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

63 P. 592

7 Idaho 453

ANDREWS v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF ADA COUNTY

Supreme Court of Idaho

December 28, 1900

STATUTE-TITLE OF ACT.-The title to an act approved March 14, 1899 (Sess Laws 1899, p. 443), held, a sufficient compliance with the provisions of article 16, section 3 of the Constitution of Idaho, in that it states the subject of said act.

ERECTION OF BRIDGE-PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS-NOTICE.-Under the provisions of section 1762 of the Revised Statutes before the board of commissioners can legally advertise for competitive bids for the erection of a bridge, they must adopt plans and specifications of such bridge, and said notice must contain explicit specifications of the proposed bridge.

SAME-LOWEST BID.-If no plans and specifications are adopted, the board has no standard by which the lowest bid can be determined.

ADVERTISING FOR BIDS-LETTING CONTRACTS.-In the matter of advertising for bids and letting contracts for public buildings or improvements, the provisions of section 1762 applicable thereto must be substantially followed.

(Syllabus by the court.)

APPEAL from District Court, Ada County.

Affirmed.

S. H Hays, Attorney General, and E. J. Frawley, for Appellant.

The contention that the title of the funding act of February 7, 1899, is insufficient to support the provisions of section 3604 of the Revised Statutes of Idaho authorizing the construction of bridges and other public improvements, and providing for the original issue of bonds in payment therefor, upon the theory that the issue of such bonds for the construction or repair of roads or bridges, or for any original purpose provided for in said section, is not embraced within the scope of the act in question, is not well founded. (Sabin v. Curtis, 3 Idaho 662, 32 P. 1130; Wright v. Kelly, 4 Idaho 624, 43 P. 565; State v. Doherty, 3 Idaho 384, 29 P. 855; 23 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 234, 238; Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 578, 28 Am. St. Rep. 382, 50 N.W. 923; People v. Wands, 23 Mich. 384; Weyand v. Stover, 35 Kan. 545, 11 P. 355; Parkinson v. State, 14 Md. 184, 74 Am. Dec. 522; People v. Lawrence, 36 Barb. 177; Ewing v. Bernette, 11 Pet. 499; United States v. Lacher, 134 U.S. 624, 10 S.Ct. 625; State v. Payne, 22 Ore. 335, 29 P. 789; Randolph v. Payne, 44 Cal. 366.)

Fremont Wood and Milton G. Cage, for Respondents.

We insist that the title of the re-enacted statute is not sufficiently broad to support the provisions of section 3604, which in no way relate either to the funding or refunding of county indebtedness. While the language of the title of the amendatory act is plain, and not susceptible of misconstruction when considered in connection with the constitutional requirement, we are not wanting in authority directly bearing upon the subject. (Palmer v. Zumbrota Bank 72 Minn. 266, 75 N.W. 381; Crowther v. Insurance Co., 85 F. 41; Fidelity etc. Co. v. Shenandoah Valley R. R. Co., 86 Va. 1, 19 Am. St. Rep. 858, 9 S.E. 759; Cannon v. Mathes, 8 Heisk. 521; Ryan v. Louisville etc. Terminal Co., 102 Tenn. 111, 50 S.W. 744, 45 L. R. A. 309; McEldowney v. Wyatt, 44 W.Va. 711, 30 S.E. 239, 45 L. R. A. 615; Dolese v. Pierce, 16 N.E. 218; Lockport v. Gaylord, 61 Ill. 279; People v. Institution, 71 Ill. 229; People v. Mellen, 32 Ill. 181; Welch v. Post. 99 Ill. 471; Railway Co. v. Lake View, 105 Ill. 183.) The trial court was clearly correct in its conclusion that there were no competitive bids under the authority of Ertle v. Leary, 114 Cal. 238, 46 P. 1; Worthington v. City of Boston, 41 F. 23; Brady v. Mayor of N. Y., 20 N.Y. 512; Knecland v. Furlong, 20 Wis. 438; Fones Bros. v. Erb, 54 Ark. 645, 17 S.W. 7, 13 L. R. A. 355.

SULLIVAN, J. Huston, C. J., and Quarles, J., concur.

OPINION

SULLIVAN, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court that reversed and annulled an order of the board of county commissioners of Ada county authorizing a contract with the Gillette-Herzog Manufacturing Company for the construction of a wagon bridge across Boise river, near Boise City, at the agreed price of $ 15,335. It is stipulated that it was the purpose of the board of commissioners to construct said bridge under the authority of the provisions of an acts approved February 7, 1899, entitled "An act providing for the issuance of negotiable coupon bonds for the funding and refunding of county indebtedness, amending chapter 6, title 13, Revised Statutes of Idaho and the subsequent amendment thereto approved March 14, 1899."

1. It is contended that the title of said act of February 7, 1899, is not sufficient to support the provisions of section 3604 thereof, which authorizes the construction of bridges and other public improvements, and the issue of bonds in payment therefor, as that subject or purpose is not expressed in the title; that the title of said act recites that the purpose of the act is "for the issuance of negotiable coupon bonds for the funding and refunding of county indebtedness"; and that the issuance of bonds for the purpose of building bridges and the construction of such other public improvements as are named in said section is not included in said title, and for that reason said provisions are void, under the provisions of section 16 article 3, of the constitution of Idaho which provides that every act shall embrace but one subject and matters properly connected therewith, which subject must be expressed in the title. Conceding, for the purposes of this case, that said title refers only to the issuance of coupon bond for funding and refunding county indebtedness, and does not include the issue of bonds for the purpose of constructing such public improvements as are mentioned in said section 3604 when such proposed indebtedness exceeds the income or revenue of the county for that year, we find that said act of February 7th was amended by an act approved March 14, 1899, the title to which act is as follows: "To amend section 3604 (concerning issue of bonds by counties for certain purposes in excess of the income or revenue of the county for the year) in section 1 of an act of the legislature of the state of Idaho entitled "An act providing for the issuance of negotiable coupon bonds for the funding and refunding of county indebtedness, amending chapter 6, title 13 Revised Statutes of Idaho,' approved February 7, 1899, by adding thereto authority to issue bonds to assist any city or village in constructing a free bridge over any navigable stream, within, or partly within or adjoining the limits of any such city or village." It will be observed that it is stated in the title of the last-mentioned act that it is an act to amend section 3604, and also recites that the subject of said section is concerning the issue of bonds by counties for certain purposes in excess of the income or revenue of the county for the year. The subject, object, or purpose of said section is sufficiently set forth in said title, and comes within the requirements of said section 16, article 3, of our constitution. "We therefore hold that said title is sufficient. (State v. Doherty, 3 Idaho 384, 29 P. 855. See, also, 23 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 234 et seq.)

The second point raised involves the authority of the board to provide for an issue of bonds for the construction of the bridge in question until such time as the contract price for the bridge has been first legally determined by the board. It is contended that it was the duty of the board first to determine the necessity for the construction of said bridge then to adopt plans and specifications, advertise for proposals for construction thereof in accordance with such plans and specifications, and thereafter enter into a conditional contract for the construction of such bridge subject to the ratification by the electors of the county, and then submit the question of the issuance of a sufficient amount of bonds to pay such contemplated liability, after deducting all funds in the county treasury available for that purpose. It is evident that the amount necessary to construct the contemplated improvement must be ascertained in some manner before the amount of bonds to be issued can be determined; and, before persons desiring to bid for such contracts can make competitive bids, they must have plans and specifications of the contemplated public improvement before they can make an intelligent bid. ...