Faist v. Mayor

• Decision Date: 12 June 1905
• Citation: 72 N.J.L. 361,60 A. 1120
• Parties: FAIST et al. v. MAYOR, ETC., OF CITY OF HOBOKEN et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

60 A. 1120

72 N.J.L. 361

FAIST et al.

v. MAYOR, ETC., OF CITY OF HOBOKEN et al.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

June 12, 1905.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Certiorari by William G. Faist and William H. Davis against the mayor and council of the city of Hoboken and others to set aside a resolution of the common council. Proceedings set aside.

Argued November term, 1904, before PITNEY and FORT, JJ.

Abel I. Smith and Mr. Mabon, for prosecutors. Leon Abbett, for defendant Padavano.

FORT, J. But a single question need be determined in deciding this case. The writ brings up a resolution of the common council of the city of Hoboken, adopted August 24, 1904, rejecting the bid of William H. Davis for the removal of garbage and ashes in the city, and awarding a contract for such removal to Antonio Padavano, one of the defendants, for one year, for $6,495. Bids for the work to be done were advertised for, and seven bids were received. Two bidders were lower than the defendant to whom the contract was awarded, namely, William H. Davis, the prosecutor, whose bid was $6,000 and Patrick H. Flaherty, whose bid was $6,400. The statute authorizing the awarding of this contract by the city of Hoboken is the act entitled "An act concerning the collection, removal and disposal of ashes and garbage in cities of this state, and providing for the payment of the cost thereof," approved March 9, 1896 (P. L. 1896, p. 56), as amended by act approved March 27, 1902 (P. L. 1902, p. 200). By this act, bids must be advertised for at least two weeks prior to the time fixed for receiving the same, and a contract may be entered into "only with the lowest responsible bidder or bidders who shall give satisfactory bonds or security for the faithful performance of the work." This statute is quite specific. Its meaning is not uncertain. The lowest responsible bidder is entitled to the contract. After the bids are opened he must be given a reasonable time to provide the bondsmen or security, and to enter into the contract required. In practice the contract and bond are, of course, drawn by the counsel of the city, and executed under his supervision. If a responsible bidder tenders himself ready to fulfill his bid by entering into the contract, and offers the bondsman or security required, he is entitled to be awarded the contract as against any person whose bid was higher than his. If there be an allegation that a bidder is not responsible, he has a right to be heard upon that question, and there must be a distinct finding against him, upon proper facts, to justify it. McGovern v. Board of Works, 57 N. J. Law, 580, 31 Atl. 613. There was no such allegation made against the prosecutor, so far as the proceedings returned disclose. His bid appears, by the report of the committee, to have been rejected for the following reason: "The bid of William Davis, who was the lowest bidder, is irregular and not in...