Chaffee v. Crowley

• Decision Date: 07 October 1922
• Citation: 49 N.D. 111,190 N.W. 308
• Parties: CHAFFEE v. CROWLEY et al.
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

49 N.D. 111

190 N.W. 308

CHAFFEE

v.CROWLEY et al.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

Oct. 7, 1922.

Syllabus by the Court.

The board of county commissioners in accepting the lowest reponsible bid exercise a discretion which may consider the ability, capacity, experience, efficiency, and reputation of the bidders.

In an action to enjoin repairs to a courthouse, pursuant to the award of a contract, it is held, for reasons stated in the opinion, that the contract was properly let, and that there are sufficient moneys available for its purposes.

Appeal from District Court, Mercer County; Nuessle, Judge.

Injunction by P. S. Chaffee, in behalf of himself and for others, against Matt Crowley and others, as the Board of Commissioners of Mercer County, and others. From a judgment of dismissal, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.Sullivan, Hanley & Sullivan, of Mandan, for appellant.

David Schwartz, State's Atty., of Golden Valley (Norton & Kelsch, of Mandan, of counsel), for respondents.

Statement.

BRONSON, J.

This is a proceeding to enjoin the execution of a contract for repairs to a courthouse. The material facts are: The county commissioners of Mercer county, deeming it necessary to make alterations and repairs to the courthouse, advertised for bids therefor. On July 5, 1922, they considered the bids submitted. There were four bids: Schafer, $6,389; Joyce, $6,013; Niedermeyer, $5,768; Schmidt, $5,760. The board accepted the bid of Joyce and immediately made a contract with him. The plaintiff, as a citizen and taxpayer, instituted this proceeding. A temporary restraining order was secured.

When the contract was let there was a balance of $3,280 in the building fund and $3,200 in the emergency fund. Three of the commissioners voted for the awarding of the contract to Joyce. Two commissioners voted in the negative, for the reason that they were opposed to any building or construction at that time. It does not appear from the evidence that any protest was made against awarding the contract to Joyce, or that any objection or demand for a rehearing was made by those whose bids were not accepted. It further appears that the principal reasons for awarding the contract to Joyce were: The commissioners were acquainted with Joyce. He had previously done some public work in the county. They knew him to be a responsible and good contractor. They did not know anything about Niedermeyer or Schmidt concerning their responsibility or ability. They accepted the bid of Joyce because it seemed the most desirable under the circumstances. It otherwise appears that Joyce had previously made a bid for the same work upon a call which was not consummated through injunctional proceedings. He made the same bid again. Niedermeyer and Schmidt had not previously bid. Further, it appears that Niedermeyer had never had a contract of this size, that when he made this bid he had some talk with the plaintiff whereby he received assurance of some protection on his bid if plaintiff should institute action to stop this proceeding. Further, it appears that the commissioners, or some of them, knew about some other work that Schmidt had done, and it did not appear to be satisfactory.

The trial court found that the board, within its judgment, properly awarded the contract to Joyce as the lowest responsible bidder, and that there were funds available for the purposes of paying such contract. Judgment was rendered dismissing the action. The plaintiff...