J. R. Francis Const. Co. v. Pima County
Decision Date | 09 July 1965 |
Docket Number | No. 2,CA-CIV,2 |
Citation | 403 P.2d 934,1 Ariz.App. 429 |
Parties | J. R. FRANCIS CONSTRUCTION CO., Inc., an Arizona corporation, Appellant, v. PIMA COUNTY, a subdivision of the State of Arizona, Thomas S. Jay, Dennis Weaver and Pete Rubl, as members of the Board of Supervisors of Pima County, Arizona, Appellees, and the Ashton Company, Inc., Contractors and Engineers, a corporation, Intervenor. * 90. |
Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Hirsch, Van Slyke, Richter & Ollason, Tucson, by Clague A. Van Slyke, for appellant.
Hillock & Hillock, by Robert N. Hillock, Tucson, for appellees.
Hall, Jones, Hannah & Trachta, by Russell E. Jones, Tucson, for intervenor.
This is an appeal from a Superior Court order quashing an alternative writ of mandamus and from a judgment in favor of the defendants and intervenor.
In the fall of 1963, the Pima County Board of Supervisors advertised for bids for the construction of a new county jail and sheriff's facilities for Pima County. J. R. Francis Construction Company and the Ashton Company submitted bids, the former in the amount of $558,975 and the latter in the amount of $563,535. Despite its bid being higher, Ashton's bid was accepted. Thereupon the Francis Company commenced an action in Superior Court seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Board of Supervisors to award the construction contract to the Francis Company, alleging that its bid was the lowest and best bid by virtue of the provisions of A.R.S. § 34-241; an alternative writ of mandamus was issued. By stipulation of the parties, the lower court granted Ashton Company leave to intervene as a party defendant. Issue being joined, the cause was tried to the court sitting without a jury in January, 1964, which resulted in the order and judgment from which this appeal is taken.
The appellant did not obtain a stay of proceedings pursuant to A.R.C.P. Rule 62(d), 16 A.R.S. nor did it supersede the judgment. The Ashton Company proceeded to fulfill its contract with Pima County and the construction has been completed. As a consequence the questions presented by this appeal have become moot.
A moot case is one which seeks to determine an abstract question which does not arise upon existing facts or rights. Mesa Mail Publishing Co. v. Board of Supervisors, 26 Ariz. 521, 524, 227 P. 572 [1924]. It is well settled that an appellate court will not decide moot questions or abstract propositions. Mesa Mail Publishing Co. v. Board of Supervisors, supra; Harrison v. Hunt, 28 Ariz. 75, 77, 235 P. 158 [1925]; State ex rel. Brawner v. Kerby, 32 Ariz. 118, 119, 256 P. 113 [1927]; Southwest Engineering Co. v. Ernst, 79 Ariz. 403, 406, 291 P.2d 764 [1955]; 5 Am.Jur.2d Appeal and Error § 913, p. 345; 5B C.J.S. Appeal and Error § 1852, p. 291.
The following quotation from People of State of California v. San Pablo & Tulare R. R. Co., 149 U.S. 308, 12 S.Ct. 876, 37 L.Ed. 747 [1893], which was approved by our Supreme Court in the Mesa Mail case, supra, expresses the rule:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hazzard v. Westview Golf Club, Inc.
...where no stay was obtained pending appeal in proceedings involving mandamus and prohibition writs. J. R. Francis Construction Co., Inc. v. Prima County et al., 1 Ariz.App. 429, 403 P.2d 934; State ex rel. Hagerty v. Rafn et als., 130 Mont. 554, 304 P.2d 918. Where a judicial sale is untaint......
-
Mueller v. City of Phoenix ex rel. Phoenix Bd. of Adjustment II
...v. Hunt, 28 Ariz. 75, 235 P. 158; Mesa Mail Pub. Co. v. Board of Supervisors, 26 Ariz. 521, 227 P. 572; Francis Construction Co. v. Pima County, 1 Ariz.App. 429, 403 P.2d 934. Therefore we decline to consider the merits of this particular Judgment of the lower court affirmed. BERNSTEIN, C.J......
-
Rodgers v. Huckelberry
...constructed and Swaim and Barker-Morrissey have already been paid for their services. We agree. See J. R. Francis Constr. Co. v. Pima County , 1 Ariz. App. 429, 430, 403 P.2d 934 (1965) (finding action to challenge public contract bidding process moot where construction had been completed),......
-
Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Grand River Dam Authority
...in this case. Not every decision by a government agency impacts on vital public interest. 20 In J.R. Francis Construction Co. v. Pima County, 1 Ariz.App. 429, 403 P.2d 934 (1965), the Arizona Court of Appeals was presented with an analagous situation. Francis submitted the low dollar bid to......