Arkansas Democrat Co. v. Press Printing Co

• Decision Date: 18 February 1893
• Citation: 21 S.W. 586,57 Ark. 322
• Parties: ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT CO. v. PRESS PRINTING CO
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

21 S.W. 586

57 Ark. 322

ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT CO. v. PRESS PRINTING CO

Supreme Court of Arkansas

February 18, 1893

Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court, DAVID W. CARROLL, Chancellor.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

This is an appeal from a decree of the Pulaski chancery court setting aside a contract made by the governor, auditor and treasurer of the State of Arkansas as a board of commissioners for the letting of public contracts, with the appellant, the Arkansas Democrat Company, for the binding of the public documents of the State for two years.

The complaint alleged that the appellee was the lowest responsible bidder for the contract, and asked that the Arkansas Democrat Company be enjoined from proceeding to do the work under the contract and that the contract be awarded to the plaintiff because it was the lowest responsible bidder therefor, and because there was no bond filed with the bid made by the Arkansas Democrat Company for the performance of the work as required by law; and because the said board refused, without reason or valid objection, to award said contract to the appellee, which had in all respects complied with the law in making its bid.

The appellant answered that its bid was signed by the company and also by James Mitchell as an individual; that said Mitchell was the principal owner of the stock of the Arkansas Democrat Company and was chiefly interested in said contract, which was well known to the board of commissioners; that Mitchell as principal made and tendered to the board with his bid for the contract a good and sufficient bond for the performance of the same, in which the name of the Arkansas Democrat Company was inadvertently omitted; that the bond was accepted and approved by the board, and the contract awarded on the faith thereof; that the appellee's bid was not the lowest; that the bid of the Democrat Company and James Mitchell was the lowest bid for said contract, and was so decided by the board to be, after fair and careful investigation; that, if necessary, the Arkansas Democrat Company and the said James Mitchell will give any bond that may be required; but they maintain that the bond already executed is sufficient; that an item in their bid of 80 cents per quire for paging was intended to be 8 cents, and was so understood at the time said contract was awarded, and that they supposed it had been changed to 8 cents; that the Democrat Company only claimed 8 cents.

They also demurred to the complaint. The evidence tends to show that the board of commissioners accepted and approved the bond of Mitchell, which it considered as the bond of the Arkansas Democrat Company; that before awarding the contract it made examination, and took testimony of experts who made calculations upon the bids made to ascertain which was the lowest, and that this contract was awarded to Mitchell and the Democrat Company, with the understanding that eight and not eighty cents per quire was to be charged for printing that the Press Printing Company based its calculations upon what the different departments of the State government had used for the two years next preceding, and the Democrat Company based its calculations upon what the departments would use for the two years next succeeding the letting of the contract (this being the period to be covered by the contract). Each claimed that its bid was the lowest bid which the respective calculations, it was claimed, showed.

The evidence tended to show that James Mitchell was the principal owner of the stock of the Arkansas Democrat Company, and that he signed the bid as a contracting party; that it was generally understood that James Mitchell and the Arkansas Democrat Company meant the same thing; that in making this bond by Mitchell the name of the Arkansas Democrat Company was inadvertently left out of it; that said company and said Mitchell are both solvent.

There was a difference in the opinions of the witnesses as to which basis of calculations made to ascertain the lowest bid was the correct basis.

Decree reversed and complaint dismissed.

James P. Clarke, Attorney General, and Ratcliffe & Fletcher for appellants.

The appellee is entitled to no relief. The State alone can complain, if no bond was executed, or the contract not let to the lowest bidder. High, Ext. Rem. secs. 92, note 2, 93, 94; 27 N.Y. 378; 13 N.Y. 382; 13 Barb. 432, 450; 91 Mo. 386; 3 S.W. 846; 82 Pa.St. 349; 36 Ohio St. 331; 24 Wis. 683; 62 Ill. 279; 31 Ark. 261; 40 Ark. 255-6; 46 id. 108-9; 47 id 200; 7 Wall. 347; Mecham, Pub. Officers, 594, 896, 897, 991; 70 Ill. 65; 62 Ill. 279.

Martin & Murphy for appellee.

The regulations required...