Kelly v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of Essex County
| Decision Date | 19 June 1917 |
| Citation | 101 A. 422,90 N.J.Law 411 |
| Parties | KELLY v. BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF ESSEX COUNTY et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Certiorari by James F. Kelly to review the rejection of a bid by the Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Essex and others. Order to be entered setting aside resolution awarding the contract, and contract rested upon it.
Argued June term, 1917, before SWAYZE, BERGEN, and BLACK, JJ.
Ralph E. Lum, of Newark, for prosecutor. Harold A. Miller, of Newark, for defendants.
The defendant, the board of chosen freeholders of the county of Essex, advertised for bids for the plumbing and gas fitting work necessary for a greenhouse and a gardener's cottage connected with a county hospital.
The prosecutor was the lowest bidder by $1, but the contract was awarded to the next highest bidder, and it is to review this award that the writ of certiorari was allowed in this case. The difference in the bids is small, but the principal involved is applicable to all bids and cannot be evaded, because, in this instance, the amount is small for the controlling legal rule must be applied in all cases without regard to sum involved. Tho minutes of the meeting of the board at which the bids were opened and considered show that after the bids were opened the architect reported that the bid of James F. Kelly was the lowest, and that thereupon it was:
—and that then the contract was awarded to the next highest bidder. The testimony taken in support of this action justifies the inference that a firm with whom the prosecutor was at one time connected had not satisfied the board with regard to work which it had done for it, but so far as the testimony goes it affords no ground for any inference that prosecutor was responsible for the ground of complaint; but assuming that his bid was rejected upon the ground that the board did not consider him a responsible bidder, the action was taken without giving him a hearing or making a finding that he was not a responsible bidder. The board has no right to arbitrarily reject a bid on that ground. The bidder has a right to be heard and to a determination of the question, which must have the support of proper facts, in order that the rejected bidder may have an opportunity to review the action taken and the sufficiency of the proof upon which it is rested. In Faist v. Hoboken, 72 N. J. Law, 361, 60 Atl. 1120, this court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arthur Venneri Co. v. Housing Authority of City of Paterson, A--88
...v. Mayor & Council of Borough of Florham Park, 5 N.J.Misc. 969, 972, 139 A. 169 (Sup.Ct.1927); Kelly v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Essex, 90 N.J.L. 411, 412--413, 101 A. 422 (Sup.Ct.1917); Armitage v. City of Newark, 86 N.J.L. 5, 8--9, 90 A. 1035 (Sup.Ct.1914); Harrington's Sons Co. v. ......
-
Commercial Cleaning Corp. v. Sullivan, A--144
...American Water Corporation v. Borough of Florham Park, 5 N.J.Misc. 969, 139 A. 169 (Sup.Ct.1927); Kelly v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Essex County, 90 N.J.L. 411, 101 A. 422 (Sup.Ct. 1917); Faist v. City of Hoboken, 72 N.J.L. 361, 60 A. 1120 (Sup.Ct. 1905). It is true that in these case......
-
William A. Carey & Co. v. Borough of Fair Lawn, Bergen County, A--371
...N.J.L. 260, 122 A. 741 (E. & A.1923); Faist v. City of Hoboken, 72 N.J.L. 361, 60 A. 1120 (Sup.Ct.1905); Kelly v. Board of Freeholders of Essex, 90 N.J.L. 411, 101 A. 422 (Sup.Ct.1917); Ianniello v. Town of Harrison, 132 A. 78, 4 N.J.Misc. 111 (Sup.Ct.1926). In these cases it was held or st......
-
Sellitto v. Grove Tp., 244.
...him, upon proper facts, to justify it.’ Faist v. City of Hoboken, 72 N.J.L. 361, 60 A. 1120, 1121; Kelly v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Essex County, 90 N.J.L. 411, 101 A. 422. Prima facie he was entitled to receive the contract. Ianniello v. Town of Harrison, 4 N.J.Misc. 111, 132 A. 78.......