Findley v. City of Pittsburgh
Decision Date | 06 November 1876 |
Citation | 82 Pa. 351 |
Parties | Findley <I>versus</I> City of Pittsburgh. |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before AGNEW, C. J., SHARSWOOD, MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON, and WOODWARD, JJ. WILLIAMS, J., absent
Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, No. 2, of Allegheny county: No. 234 of October and November Term 1875, in Equity.
W. H. & A. N. Sutton, for appellants, contended that pecuniary ability was what was implied by the word "responsible," and that it had no reference to the habits of the bidder; that the city was only concerned in having the work done skilfully, and it was a matter of no import what were the morals or habits of the contractors, so that they were competent to do the work. The authorities cited in support of this position were in the main those produced in the foregoing case of Commonwealth v. Mitchell.
Slagle & Wiley, and the City Solicitor, Thomas S. Bigelow, for appellee, argued that the "responsibility" in the contemplation of the statute was clearly not to be limited to a pecuniary liability, and that if the city councils honestly believed that a bidder was dishonest, they had a right to exercise the discretion they did, and reject his bid, although it was the lowest; and that where this exercise of discretion has not been improperly or corruptly induced, courts have no authority to interfere.
Whilst we are not prepared to take the same view of the facts in this case as did the learned judge of the court below, in that we think the allegations of fraud, charged against N. Snyder & Co. in a former contract with the city, are not sustained, yet we must adopt his final conclusion as the proper one. We have ruled in the case of the Commonwealth ex rel. N. Snyder & Co. v. Mitchell et al. and the City of Pittsburgh, argued at the same time with this case, that the Act of Assembly imposed upon the city authorities duties, in awarding the contract in controversy, which were not merely ministerial, but deliberative and discretionary, and that as a consequence the writ of mandamus would not lie to compel them to award the contract to N. Snyder & Co., who were the lowest bidders; that the city authorities having, perhaps indiscreetly, but not corruptly, proceeded to the performance of the duty with which they were charged by the statute, the matter was put beyond our reach. It is obvious, therefore, that it would...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kaufman Construction Co. v. Holcomb
...Jur. 856, § 68; 34 Am. Jur. 859, § 70; 34 Am. Jur. 863, § 73; Commonwealth ex rel. Snyder v. Mitchell , 82 Pa. 343, 350; Findley v. City of Pittsburgh, 82 Pa. 351; Runkle v. Commonwealth , 97 Pa. 328, 331, Commonwealth v. McLaughlin, 120 Pa. 518, 522, 14 A. 377; Reese v. Board of Mine Exami......
-
Feil v. City of Coeur D'Alene
...consistent with an honest judgment, the court should not interfere. (Van Reipen v. Jersey City, 58 N.J.L. 262, 33 A. 740; Findley v. City of Pittsburgh, 82 Pa. 351; v. Board, 60 N.J.L. 404, 38 A. 676.) Courts have uniformly refused to interfere or judicially review the proceedings leading u......
-
City of Erie v. Piece of Land Fronting on Eleventh Street
... ... contract to the lowest bidder. This has been repeatedly held ... by the Supreme Court of this state: Com. v ... Mitchell, 82 Pa. 343; Findley v. Pittsburg, 82 ... Pa. 351; Douglass v. Com., 108 Pa. 559; Paving ... Company v. Philadelphia, 164 Pa. 477 ... Besides, ... when the ... abutting property before the work was done: Commonwealth ... v. Mitchell, 82 Pa. 343; Findley v. Pittsburgh, ... 82 Pa. 351. If the provisions of the ordinance regulating the ... manner of bidding upon the work had not been complied with, ... and a ... ...
-
Monaghan v. City Of Indianapolis
...an honest judgment, the court should not interfere. Van Reipen v. City of New Jersey, 58 N. J. Law, 262, 268, 33 Atl. 740;Findley v. City of Pittsburgh, 82 Pa. 351; Ferguson v. Board, 60 N. J. Law, 404, 38 Atl. 676. In Oakley v. City of Atlantic City (N. J. Sup.) 44 Atl. 651, Mr. Justice Li......