Price v. City of Fargo

• Citation: 139 N.W. 1054,24 N.D. 440
• Decision Date: 01 February 1913
• Docket Number: 81912
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

139 N.W. 1054

24 N.D. 440

PRICE v. CITY OF FARGO, North Dakota, A Municipal Corporation, V. R. Lovell, Mayor of the City of Fargo, E. R. Orchard, Auditor of the City of Fargo, C. H. Mitchell, Treasurer of the City of Fargo, and James Kennedy

No. 81912

Supreme Court of North Dakota

February 1, 1913

Appeal from the District Court for Cass county; Pollock, J.

Action to enjoin the city of Fargo and the city officials of said city from carrying out a contract for the erection of a water filtration plant for said city, on the ground of the illegality of said contract. Writ denied.

Affirmed.

Stambaugh & Fowler, for appellant.

The statute regulating the manner of letting contracts for public work by cities, applies to and governs the building of a water filtration plant. Constitution, §§ 183, 130; Stern v. Fargo, 18 N.D. 289, 26 L.R.A.(N.S.) 665 122 N.W. 403; Ft. Scott v. W. G. Eads Brokerage Co. 54 C. C. A. 437, 117 F. 51; Platter v. Elkhart County, 103 Ind. 360, 2 N.E. 544; Moss v. Fairbury, 66 Neb. 671, 92 N.W. 722.

Municipalities have such powers only, as are expressed in their charters. 28 Cyc. 274.

The city of Fargo is governed by, and operating under the provisions of Chapter 62 of the Laws of 1905, which is its charter. State ex rel. Mitchell v. Mayo, 15 N.D 327, 108 N.W. 36.

The city must strictly comply with all requirements and restrictions contained in charter. Laws 1905, chap. 62, secs 142-149.

The entire statute and its general subject matter must be considered, in construing it. Vermont Loan & T. Co. v Whithed, 2 N.D. 83, 49 N.W. 318; Grigsby v Minnehaha County, 6 S.D. 492, 62 N.W. 106; Stern v. Fargo, 18 N.D. 289, 26 L.R.A.(N.S.) 665, 122 N.W. 408.

Courts must harmonize the various provisions of a statute, so far as possible, to give effect to legislative intent. First Nat. Bank v. Lewis, 18 N.D. 393, 121 N.W. 836; Minot v. Amundson, 22 N.D. 236, 133 N.W. 551; Fremont, E. & M. Valley R. Co. v. Pennington County, 20 S.D. 270, 105 N.W. 929; State ex rel. Erickson v. Burr, 16 N.D. 581, 113 N.W. 705; State ex rel. Flaherty v. Hanson, 16 N.D. 348, 113 N.W. 371; Saunders v. Iowa City, 134 Iowa 132, 9 L.R.A.(N.S.) 392, 111 N.W. 531; McQuiddy v. Brannock, 70 Mo.App. 535.

The mere numbering of the sections of an act is immaterial. Re Bull, 153 Cal. 715, 96 P. 366.

The statute requires competition in bids. Chippewa Bridge Co. v. Durand, 122 Wis. 85, 106 Am. St. Rep. 931, 99 N.W. 603; State ex rel. Dunn v. Barlow, 48 Mo. 17; Mazet v. Pittsburgh, 137 Pa. 548, 20 A. 693; American Pavement Co. v. Wagner, 139 Pa. 623, 21 A. 160; Trenton v. Shaw, 49 N.J.L. 638, 10 A. 273.

Statute is not limited to special improvements. State ex rel. Dunn v. Barlow, 48 Mo. 22; State ex rel. Purcell v. Anderson, 18 N.D. 147, 118 N.W. 29; Moran v. Thompson, 20 Wash. 525, 56 P. 29; LeTourneau v. Hugo, 90 Minn. 420, 97 N.W. 115.

Contract, if not let by competitive bids, is null and void. Plaintiff--a taxpayer--can maintain this suit. Engstad v. Dinnie, 8 N.D. 11, 76 N.W. 292; Storey v. Murphy, 9 N.D. 115, 81 N.W. 23; Fox v. Walley, 13 N.D. 611, 102 N.W. 161; 2 High, Inj. 1263; Chippewa Bridge Co. v. Durand, 122 Wis. 85, 106 Am. St. Rep. 931, 99 N.W. 611.

This is in effect a suit by the public; laches is no bar, even if existing. Fox v. Walley, 13 N.D. 610, 102 N.W. 161; Storey v. Murphy, 9 N.D. 115, 81 N.W. 23; 2 High, Inj. 1260; Manly Bldg. Co. v. Newton, 114 Ga. 245, 40 S.E. 278; McLauren v. Grand Forks, 6 Dak. 397, 43 N.W. 710; Pickton v. Fargo, 10 N.D. 469, 88 N.W. 90; Ricketson v. Milwaukee, 105 Wis. 591, 47 L.R.A. 685, 81 N.W. 864; Platter v. Elkhart County, 103 Ind. 360, 2 N.E. 544; Forsyth County v. Gwinnett County, 108 Ga. 510, 33 S.E. 892; 28 Cyc. 1025, and cases cited. Broderick v. St. Paul, 90 Minn. 443, 97 N.W. 118.

The public notice for bids must strictly comply with the statute. Platter v. Elkhart County, 103 Ind. 360, 2 N.E. 544; Windsor v. Des Moines, 101 Iowa 343, 70 N.W. 214; Bennett v. Emmetsburg, 138 Iowa 67, 115 N.W. 582.

Contract must be awarded to lowest competitive bidder. Section 148 of act; Hannan v. Board of Education, 25 Okla. 372, 30 L.R.A.(N.S.) 214, 107 P. 646; 2 Dill. Mun. Corp. § 807; Diamond v. Mankato, 89 Minn. 48, 61 L.R.A. 448, 93 N.W. 912; Fones Bros. Hardware Co. v. Erb, 54 Ark. 645, 13 L.R.A. 353, 17 S.W. 7; Atty. Gen. ex rel. Cook v. Detroit, 26 Mich. 263; Nash v. St. Paul, 11 Minn. 174, Gil. 110.

Plans and specifications for such work are necessary. Huntington County v. Pashong, 41 Ind.App. 69, 83 N.E. 383; Chippewa Bridge Co. v. Durand, 122 Wis. 85, 106 Am. St. Rep. 931, 99 N.W. 611; Hannan v. Board of Education, 25 Okla. 372, 30 L.R.A.(N.S.) 214, 107 P. 646; Moran v. Thompson, 20 Wash. 525, 56 P. 29; Ertle v. Leary, 114 Cal. 238, 46 P. 1; State ex rel. Clark v. Douglas County, 11 Neb. 484, 9 N.W. 691.

City council has no power to permit one bid to be amended, so as to make it better than another. Wickwire v. Elkhart, 144 Ind. 305, 43 N.E. 216; Frame v. Felix, 167 Pa. 47, 27 L.R.A. 802, 31 A. 375; Moss v. Fairbury, 66 Neb. 671, 92 N.W. 721; Packard v. Hayes, 94 Md. 233, 51 A. 32; Andrews v. Ada County, 7 Idaho 453, 63 P. 592; Sanitary Dist. v. Lee, 79 Ill.App. 169; Manly Bldg. Co. v. Newton, 114 Ga. 245, 40 S.E. 274; Piedmont Paving Co. v. Allman, 136 Cal. 88, 68 P. 493; Fay v. Reed, 128 Cal. 357, 60 P. 927; McBrian v. Grand Rapids, 56 Mich. 95, 22 N.W. 206; Ely v. Grand Rapids, 84 Mich. 336, 47 N.W. 447; Brady v. New York, 20 N.Y. 312; Kneeland v. Milwaukee, 18 Wis. 412; Wells v. Burnham, 20 Wis. 113; Ricketson v. Milwaukee, 105 Wis. 591, 47 L.R.A. 685, 81 N.W. 864.

Evidence of patented articles to be used, is incompetent. 1905 Code, § 7308, P 8; U.S. Rev. Stat. Sec. 892, U.S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 673; Paine v. Trask, 5 C. C. A. 497, 5 U.S. App. 283, 56 F. 233.

The contract in this suit is null and void. Chippewa Bridge Co. v. Durand, 122 Wis. 85, 106 Am. St. Rep. 931, 99 N.W. 611; Ricketson v. Milwaukee, 105 Wis. 591, 47 L.R.A. 685, 81 N.W. 864; Frederick v. Douglass County, 96 Wis. 411, 71 N.W. 798; Mueller v. Eau Claire County, 108 Wis. 304, 84 N.W. 430; City Improv. Co. v. Broderick, 125 Cal. 139, 57 P. 776; McCloud v. Columbus, 54 Ohio St. 439, 44 N.E. 95; Addis v. Pittsburgh, 85 Pa. 379; Zottman v. San Francisco, 20 Cal. 96, 81 Am. Dec. 96; State, McDermott, Prosecutor, v. Jersey City Street & Water Comrs. 56 N.J.L. 273, 28 A. 424; Brady v. New York, 20 N.Y. 312; Richmond County v. Ellis, 59 N.Y. 620; McDonald v. New York, 68 N.Y. 23, 23 Am. Rep. 144; Dickinson v. Poughkeepsie, 75 N.Y. 65; Lyddy v. Long Island City, 104 N.Y. 218, 10 N.E. 155; People ex rel. Coughlin v. Gleason, 121 N.Y. 631, 25 N.E. 4.

Judgment for restoration of money paid should be rendered. Webster v. Douglas County, 102 Wis. 181, 72 Am. St. Rep. 870, 77 N.W. 885, 78 N.W. 451; Egaard v. Dahlke, 109 Wis. 366, 85 N.W. 369; Rev. Codes 1905, Sec. 7229; Buckingham v. Flummerfelt, 15 N.D. 112, 106 N.W. 403.

Ball, Watson, Young, & Lawrence, Emerson H. Smith, City Attorney, and V. R. Lovell, for respondents.

Assignments of error must be specific, and must be made in compliance with the rules of court, or they will be deemed abandoned. Hostetter v. Brooks Elevator Co. 4 N.D. 357, 61 N.W. 49; O'Brien v. Miller, 4 N.D. 308, 60 N.W. 841; Globe Invest. Co. v. Boyum, 3 N.D. 538, 58 N.W. 339; Thompson v. Cunningham, 6 N.D. 426, 71 N.W. 128; Brnjolfson v. Thingvalla Twp. 8 N.D. 106, 77 N.W. 284; Deindorfer v. Bachmore, 12 S.D. 285, 81 N.W. 297.

This case cannot be reviewed or retried. Griffith v. Walworth County, 20 S.D. 142, 104 N.W. 1117; Sucker State Drill Co. v. Brock, 18 N.D. 532, 123 N.W. 667; Brynjolfson v. Thingvalla Twp. 8 N.D. 106, 77 N.W. 284; Wilson v. Kartes, 11 N.D. 92, 88 N.W. 1023; State v. Wright, 20 N.D. 216, 126 N.W. 1023, Ann. Cas. 1912 C, 795; Marck v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. Ste. M. R. Co. 15 N.D. 86, 105 N.W. 1106; Buckingham v. Flummerfelt, 15 N.D. 112, 106 N.W. 403.

Questions of fact, for review, must be specific, and clearly presented, and must not be mere legal questions. Douglas v. Richards, 10 N.D. 366, 87 N.W. 600; Salemonson v. Thompson, 13 N.D. 190, 101 N.W. 321.

Where acts sought to be enjoined and restrained are performed pending an appeal, judgment reversing the trial court improper and of no avail. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Sioux Falls, 28 S.D. 471, 134 N.W. 46; Wingert v. First Nat. Bank, 223 U.S. 670, 56 L.Ed. 605, 32 S.Ct. 391.

The relief sought by plaintiff is inequitable. The interests of the public are paramount to the interests of the individual, and a taxpayer cannot use the processes of the court to do an injustice to the public. State ex rel. Walker v. McLean County, 11 N.D. 356, 92 N.W. 385; State ex rel. Madderson v. Noble, 16 N.D. 168, 125 Am. St. Rep. 628, 112 N.W. 141; Erickson v. Cass County, 11 N.D. 509, 92 N.W. 841; Wood v. Bangs, 1 Dak. 179, 46 N.W. 586; High, Inj. 9; Sheldon v. Rockwell, 9 Wis. 168, 76 Am. Dec. 265; 6 U.S. Dig.; Warden v. Fond du Lac County, 14 Wis. 618; Pettibone v. La Crosse & M. R. Co. 14 Wis. 443; Morris & E. R. Co. v. Prudden, 20 N.J.Eq. 530.

Injunction will not be granted when injury complained of is slight, compared to the inconvenience to the defendant and the public. Higbee v. Camden & A. R. Co. 20 N.J.Eq. 435; Kneeland v. Milwaukee, 15 Wis. 455; Wheeler v. Rice, 83 Pa. 232; Logansport v. Uhl, 99 Ind. 539, 50 Am. Rep. 109; McGuire v. Rapid City, 6 Dak. 346, 5 L.R.A. 752, 43 N.W. 706; National Tube-Works Co. v. Chamberlain, 5 Dak. 54, 37 N.W. 761; Wren v. Indianapolis, 96 Ind. 218; Frick v. Brinkley, 61 Ark. 397, 33 S.W. 527; Moore v. New York, 73 N.Y. 238, 29 Am. Rep. 134; McCullough v. Denver, 39 F. 307; Scharr v. Camden, N.J.Eq. , 49 A. 817; Tash v. Adams, 10 Cush. 252.

In the absence of fraud, though contract may be void,...