Bentley v. State
Decision Date | 29 January 1889 |
Citation | 73 Wis. 416,41 N.W. 338 |
Parties | BENTLEY ET AL. v. STATE. |
Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Original action against state instituted under Rev. St. c. 139.
Chapter 252, Laws 1882, went into effect March 31, 1882, and authorized the construction of two transverse wings to the state capitol,--one on the north, and the other on the south,--to be built by contractors according to the plans and specifications therein provided for, and under the superintendence of an architect or superintendent therein authorized; the bid or bids therefor not to exceed, in the aggregate, $100,000 payable in 1882, and $100,000 payable in 1883. The said act also required the board of commissioners therein authorized to procure suitable and proper plans, drawings, and specifications for the construction of said buildings, and, after the adoption of the same, to advertise for 20 days for sealed proposals for the erection of said buildings; that the contract therefor should be let by such board to the best responsible bidder or bidders, to whom such contract was to be awarded, and with whom it should be made. The complaint alleges, in effect, that May 25, 1882, the said board of commissioners, having been fully appointed and duly organized, caused notice to be given that until June 15, 1882, at 10 o'clock A. M., sealed proposals in the form of a contract, for which blanks were furnished by said board, would be received by them for the construction of said two wings, designed by D. R. Jones, architect, and stating that plans and specifications therefor would be on exhibition at the office of said Jones, in Madison, after May 25, 1882; that the plaintiffs made a bid for such construction of said two wings in accordance with the blank contracts furnished to them by said board; that when such proposals were opened, June 15, 1882, it was found that the lowest bid exceeded the amount of the appropriation therefor, and hence was not accepted; that prior to that time said board had employed said Jones as such architect and superintendent, and had given him the general charge and control of the same, and of the letting of the contract; that said Jones then and there twice successively changed said plans and specifications, so as to make said wings cheaper than originally designed, and said board requested the plaintiffs and others to again bid on the same according to such altered plans; that, while the plaintiffs were required to enter into a contract for the doing of the whole work, it was well understood that large portions of the material were to be furnished by subcontractors, who made their bids therefor, and who were then and there present, and modified their bids according to such altered plans and specifications; that among other things there was to go into said building a large quantity of cast-iron work, minutely described in said specifications, which was to be made and furnished by a subcontractor; that one James Fyfe, of Portage, Wis., did then and there figure and bid on such work, and make the lowest bid for the same; that these plaintiffs did not know said James Fyfe, but said Jones, who knew him, told the plaintiffs that he was reliable, and requested these plaintiffs to accept his bid for such castiron work, and they did so at his request, requiring said Fyfe to furnish the same according to the said specifications and contract, by which all the materials furnished were subject to the approval of said Jones, the superintendent of the building; that these plaintiffs did thereupon make the bid of said James Fyfe for cast-iron work the basis of their calculation, and bid for the whole work, and that upon their final bid so made, after the said several modifications of said plans and specifications, the contract was let to them, and that they then, with the approval of said Jones, let the cast-iron work to said James Fyfe; that, omitting the formal parts, the plaintiffs, as parties of the first part, and the state of Wisconsin, as party of the second part, June 16, 1882, made, entered into, and executed the following contract:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Chi., St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co. v. Douglas Cnty.
...236;Sloan v. State, 51 Wis. 623, 8 N. W. 393; Bigelow on Estoppel (5th Ed.) 341; 11 Encyc. Law (2d Ed.) 396; 16 Cyc. 714; Bentley v. State, 73 Wis. 416, 41 N. W. 338;Mulcairns v. Janesville, 67 Wis. 24, 29 N. W. 565;Wallace v. City of Menasha, 48 Wis. 79, 4 N. W. 101, 33 Am. Rep. 804;C., M.......
-
McCree & Co. v. State
...Flintic Stone Co. v. The Mayor, 160 N.Y. 72, 54 N.E. 661; Filbert v. City of Philadelphia, 181 Pa. 530, 37 A. 545; Bentley v. State, 73 Wis. 416, 41 N.W. 338. See Sundstrom v. State of New York, 213 N.Y. 68, 106 N.E. 924. This responsibility of the owner is not overcome by the usual clauses......
-
Sandy Hites Co. v. State Highway Com'n
...the plans and specifications furnished by the Highway Commission. Beattie Mfg. Co. v. Heinz, 120 Mo.App. 465, 97 S.W. 188; Bentley v. State, 73 Wis. 416, 41 N.W. 338; Canuso v. Philadelphia, 192 A. 133; Penn Bridge Co. v. New Orleans, 222 F. 737, certiorari denied 239 U.S. 639, 60 L.Ed. 481......
-
Hooks Smelting Company v. Planters' Compress Company
...and directions, and is not responsible for their failure to work. 52 P. 496, s. c. 120 Cal. 228; 9 Dana, 358, s. c. 35 Am. Dec. 141; 41 N.W. 338, s. c. 73 Wis. 416; 26 869; 21 A. 306, s. c. 140 Pa.St. 28; 70 Ill. 128; 54 N.Y.S. 411; 58 Ill.App. 663; 39 A. 583; 74 F. 160; 54 N.E. 661, s. c. ......