City of Chicago v. Hanreddy.
| Decision Date | 23 June 1904 |
| Citation | 211 Ill. 24,71 N.E. 834 |
| Parties | CITY OF CHICAGO et al. v. HANREDDY. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Appellate Court, First District.
Bill by Joseph Hanreddy against the city of Chicago and others. From a decree of the Appellate Court (102 Ill. App. 1) affirming a decree for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.Charles M. Walker, Corp. Counsel, Thomas J. Sutherland, and Roswell B. Mason, for appellants.
Joseph B. David, for appellee.
This was a bill in chancery, filed in the superior court of Cook county by the appellee, a resident and taxpayer of the city of Chicago, against the city of Chicago, its mayor, and certain other officers of said city, to enjoin said city from constructing by day labor a portion of section D of the Lawrence avenue main conduit for intercepting sewers. The city and its officers, who were made defendants to said bill, filed an answer thereto, and upon a hearing upon bill and answer a decree was entered granting an injunction restraining the city of Chicago and its officers from constructing said work otherwise than by a contract or contracts let, after advertising and receiving bids therefor, to the lowest responsible bidder or bidders. An appeal was prosecuted from said decree by the appellants to the Appellate Court for the First District, where the same was affirmed, and a further appeal has been prosecuted to this court.
It appears from the bill and answer that the city council of the city of Chicago, prior to May 2, 1898, passed an ordinance for the construction in said city of section D of the Lawrence avenue main conduit for intercepting sewers; that on said 2d day of May a contract was entered into between the city of Chicago and John W. Farley and John Green, doing business under the name of Farley & Green, for the construction of said work. The contract provided that the work should be commenced on or before May 3, 1898, and should progress thereafter uninterruptedly, unless otherwise ordered by the commissioner of public works, and should be completed on or before September 1, 1899. The time of the commencement, rate of progress, and time of completion of the improvement were made essential conditions of the contract. The contract provided that everything pertaining to the work should be in every particular satisfactory to the commissioner of public works, and that the work should be done in accordance with certain plans and specifications, which were made a part of the contract. It was provided, among other things, by the contract, that the work should be prosecuted with such force as the commissioner of public works should deem adequate to its completion within the time specified, and if at any time the contractors should refuse or neglect to prosecute the work with a force sufficient, in the opinion of the said commissioner, for its completion within a specified time, or if, in any event, the contractor should fail to proceed with the work in accordance with the requirements and conditions of the contract, the city, by its commissioner of public works, should have the right and authority to take the work out of the contractor's hands, and to employ other workmen to complete the unfinished work, and to deduct the expenses thereof from any money that might be due the contractors on account of the work, or to relet the same to other parties. Farley & Green entered into bond in the sum of $239,000, with the American Surety Company of New York as surety, conditioned for the faithful performance by Farley & Green of their contract with the city for the construction of the improvement. The conduit was to be 12,817 feet in length, 3,905 feet of which, in Lawrence avenue, and extending from Lake Michigan to Beacon street, was to be what is known as an ‘open cut,’ and the remainder was to be tunnel work. Farley & Green proceeded with the work until they had completed the 3,905 feet of open cut and 694 feet of the tunnel, making in all 4,599 feet, and then abandoned the work and refused to perform their contract, leaving 8,218 feet of the tunnel work uncompleted.
October 21, 1901, the city council passed an order, whereby, after reciting the default of Farley & Green, the commissioner of public works was directed to advertise for bids for the completion of the work provided for by the Farley & Green contract. The commissioner of public works advertised for bids as directed by the order, and in response to the advertisement received the following bids: Griffiths & McDermott, $81.25 per foot; Joseph Hanreddy, $68 per foot; Fitz Simons & Connell, $75 per foot; Nash Bros., $71.90 per foot. November 8, 1901, the commissioner of public works sent a written communication to the city council, stating that he had advertised for bids in accordance with the order of October 21, 1901, and transmitted the bids received by him to the city council. He also stated in said communication that the estimates made by the department of public works on said work was $66 per foot actual cost, not taking into consideration any unforeseen delays that might occur in the completion of the work, and that, taking everything into consideration, the department estimated the work could be done for $70 per foot, and stated if said work was done by day labor it would progress rapidly, and all chances of extras, on account of unforeseen delays or other conditions, would be eliminated, and suggested, before the city council recommended any award of a contract for the completion of the work, that the policy of doing said work by day labor be thoroughly investigated. After the receipt of said communication from the commissioner of public works, the city council, on December 16, 1901, passed an ordinance, the material parts of which are as follows: ‘Be it ordained by the city council of the city of Chicago:
‘Section 1. That the commissioner of public works be and he is hereby authorized and directed to complete the work required by the contract between Farley & Green and the city of Chicago, dated May 2, 1898, for the construction of section D, ipen cut and tunnel, Lawrence avenue, of main conduits for intercepting sewers, directly, and not by contract, and in the employment of labor thereon to employ exclusively laborers and artisans whom the city shall pay by the day. All material of the value of $500 and upward, used in the construction of said work, shall be purchased by first advertising and then letting contracts therefor to the lowest responsible bidder, in the method provided by law. Every laborer and artisan employed under this section shall be certified by the civil service commission to the commissioner of public works, in accordance with the requirements of an act of the Legislature of the state of Illinois, entitled ‘An act to regulate the civil service of cities,’ in force March 20, 1895, and the rules of the civil service commission of the city of Chicago. On or before the fifteenth day of each...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Soc. Bicycles LLC v. City of Chi. Dep't of Transp., Case No. 19 C 5253
...O'Hare Exp., Inc. v. City of Chicago , 235 Ill. App. 3d 202, 176 Ill.Dec. 148, 601 N.E.2d 846, 851 (1992) (citing City of Chicago v. Hanreddy , 211 Ill. 24, 71 N.E. 834 (1904) ). Where a party seeks to challenge a procurement process it did not participate in, however, courts generally hold......
-
Haas v. Lincoln Park Com'rs
...it is not observed the contract is invalid and unenforceable. De Kam v. City of Streator, 316 Ill. 123, 146 N. E. 550;City of Chicago v. Hanreddy, 211 Ill. 24, 71 N. E. 834; 3 McQuillin on Mun. Corp. (2d Ed.) pp. 836, 837. The Commissioners of Lincoln Park could not by the passage or revisi......
-
O'Hare Exp., Inc. v. City of Chicago
...Illinois have not authorized the unbridled discretion of the municipality in awarding contracts. For example, in City of Chicago v. Hanreddy (1904), 211 Ill. 24, 71 N.E. 834 (affirming 102 Ill.App. 1), the successful contractor in a competitively bid sewer construction contract abandoned th......
-
Inskip v. Board of Trustees of University of Ill.
...prohibition is absent is persuasive of the legislative intent to permit a continuation of the practice. The case of City of Chicago v. Hanreddy, 211 Ill. 24, 71 N.E. 834, cited by plaintiffs, involved section 50 of article IX of the Cities and Villages Act of 1872 which provided that 'any w......