Hibbs v. Arensberg

• Decision Date: 03 January 1923
• Docket Number: 84
• Citation: 276 Pa. 24,119 A. 727
• Parties: Hibbs et al., Appellant, v. Arensberg et al
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

119 A. 727

276 Pa. 24

Hibbs et al., Appellant, v. Arensberg et al

No. 84

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

January 3, 1923

Submitted October 4, 1922

Appeal, No. 84, Jan. T., 1923, by plaintiffs, from decree of C.P. Fayette Co., No. 1058 in equity, dismissing bill in equity, in case of James W. Hibbs, William J. Stewart and N E. Porter, on behalf of themselves and such other taxpayers of the school district of Luzerne Township as may desire to join therein, v. J. R. Arensberg et al., School Directors of the School District of Luzerne Twp., and Dominick DeGregorio doing business as Republic Construction Company. Reversed.

Bill in equity for an injunction. Before REPPERT, J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

Bill dismissed. Plaintiff appealed.

Error assigned, inter alia, was decree, quoting record.

The decree of the court below is reversed, the bill is reinstated with a procedendo to issue the injunction as prayed for in the bill; costs to be paid by appellee.

Sturgis Morrow & Sturgis, for appellants. -- The four school directors, who gave the contract to a high bidder, in so doing did not and could not have exercised such discretion as it was their duty to exercise: Lamb v. Redding, 234 Pa. 481.

Where the specifications for the erection of a public school building let under the provisions of the Act of May 18, 1911, P.L. 309, contain no notice as to the time for completing the contract and each bidder specified his own time, there was no common basis upon which the bids could be computed: Edmundson v. School Dist., 248 Pa. 559; Kroshinsky v. School Dist., 44 Pa. C.C.R. 327.

The specifications were not obtainable by all: Mazet v. Pittsburgh, 137 Pa. 548; Kroskinsky v. School Dist., 44 Pa. C.C.R. 327.

The employment of inspector was illegal.

J. B. Adams and H. S. Dumbauld, for appellees. -- Date for completion of building was duly fixed, and compensation for delay provided.

Seven bidders put in bids from plans and specifications furnished, an unusually large number of bids on any contract. How many other plans were given out was not stated.

Duties of a school board are not simply ministerial but deliberative and discretionary: Com. ex rel. v. Mitchell, 82 Pa. 343; Findley v. Pittsburgh, 82 Pa. 351; Paving Co. v. Phila., 164 Pa. 477; Reuting v. Titusville, 175 Pa. 512; Edmundson v. School Dist., 248 Pa. 559; Lamb v. Redding, 234 Pa. 481.

Before MOSCHZISKER, C.J., FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON, KEPHART, SADLER and SCHAFFER, JJ.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE KEPHART:

Executive officers of municipal and school districts have many discretionary powers in performing their functions; ordinarily courts will not interfere with this exercise, but if it appears their action is based on a misconception of law, ignorance through lack of inquiry into facts necessary to form intelligent judgment, or the result of arbitrary will or caprice, courts will intervene to prevent an abuse of power adverse to public welfare. Executive officers are clothed with the responsibility of originating and executing plans for the public good; the presumption is that their acts are on such considerations and their decisions reached in a legal way after investigation. When their actions are challenged, the burden of showing to the contrary rests on those asserting it, and it is a heavy burden; courts can and will interfere only when it is made apparent this discretion has been abused. Abuse of discretion does not, as a rule, come from unwise acts or mistaken judgment, but generally springs from improper influences, a disregard of duty, or a violation of law.

It is averred, in the bill to restrain the school directors from awarding the contract to construct a badly needed school building in a school district in Fayette County, that the architect's plans and specifications do not fully state the kind, quality and quantity of materials required. One special item reads: "The face brick . . . to be a thoroughly vitrified wire-cut face brick of such color as will be selected by the architect and school board . . . to cost not more than $34 per thousand." We see no reason why an intelligent bid could not be made on this item. Vitrified wire-cut face brick has a definite meaning; the contract preserved the right of inspection and rejection of materials, and there was little opportunity to slight the quality. If a certain make of brick had been selected, or several makes, we can readily see a charge of a different character might be presented. That the directors later decided to use a little more expensive brick would not condemn the letting, or cause the directors to be liable for the increased price, or avoid the purchase. There was no such departure from the general purpose as would require reletting. Unforeseen contingencies or new ideas sometimes make it necessary to change the character or quality of material or a part of a structure from the original plans. A certain flexibility in the power of officials to take care of these matters is intended to be granted, that the law relating to public letting may not become an instrument of oppression through a too rigid construction. These officers must act honestly, reasonably and intelligently, and a new departure must not so vary from the original plan or be of such importance as to constitute a new undertaking, which the act controls, and where fairness could only be reached through competitive bidding. Courts, however, will be slow to interfere unless it appears the officers are not acting in good faith.

When the advertisement for bids was made neither it nor the specifications stated the time within which the building should be completed. This was in direct conflict with Edmundson v. Pittsburgh School District, 248 Pa. 559, 563, where we said that when each bidder specified his own time for completing the contract there was no common basis upon which bids could be computed.

This was not the only mistake in the letting. The architect did not supply a sufficient number of copies of the plans and specifications for all those who expressed a wish to bid reputable contractors were...