Putnam Foundry & Mach. Co. v. Town Council of Barrington

• Decision Date: 03 July 1907
• Parties: PUTNAM FOUNDRY & MACHINE CO. v. TOWN COUNCIL OF BARRINGTON.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

67 A. 733

28 R.I. 422

PUTNAM FOUNDRY & MACHINE CO.

v. TOWN COUNCIL OF BARRINGTON.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

July 3, 1907.

Appeal from Superior Court, Providence County.

Mandamus by the Putnam Foundry & Machine Company against the town council of the town of Barrington. From an order of the superior court sustaining a demurrer to the petition, plaintiff appeals. Appeal dismissed. Judgment affirmed, and petition remanded.

Argued before DOUGLAS, C. J., and DUBOIS, BLODGETT, JOHNSON, and PARKHURST, JJ.

George H. Huddy, for petitioner. Alfred S. Johnson and Arthur P. Johnson, for respondent.

JOHNSON, J. This is a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the town council of the town of Barrington to cause to be executed a contract in writing for the reconstruction of the heating apparatus of the town building of said town of Barrington. Said petition is based upon the following facts, as to which there is no dispute: Prior to the 16th day of August, 1906, the then town council of the town of Barrington invited certain dealers in heating apparatus, including the Putnam Foundry & Machine Company, to submit bids for the reconstruction of the heating apparatus of the town building of the town of Barrington. Several such bids were submitted, including one by said Putnam Foundry & Machine Company, based upon certain plans and specifications submitted therewith, under date of August 16, 1906; said bid being for the sum of $2,250. Said town council, after considering said bids, made the following report: "The heating of the town building as a whole has never been entirely satisfactory. This has been due in part to a lack of sufficient radiation. For the last two or three years it has been more difficult, although the same quantity of fuel was being used. A committee from your council called in the aid of several experts in heating to see if some change could not be made to secure better results. After a careful examination the changes deemed necessary by them varied considerably, as was shown by their bids. One firm, however, presented a bid for a complete reconstruction of the whole system. The plan outlined by this company was the most satisfactory to this council because it entered into detail and was thorough and clear. But the amount needed and the extreme importance of the work being done thoroughly, if at all, made it seem wise to us to present the matter to the electors of the town for their action. Therefore we recommend to the electors that they authorize the new council to make a thorough reconstruction of the heating system in the town building, that new boilers, extra radiation where needed, and such changes as were outlined in the specifications accompanying the bid of the Putnam Foundry & Machine Company— and we further recommend that the bid of the aforesaid company, dated August, 1906, of $2,250, be accepted and the work awarded to them. Our reason for these recommendations are these: That company gave the only satisfactory and reasonable solution of the matter. The present boilers are not deemed of sufficient capacity or strength to bear the additional radiation, because of the wornout or congested condition of parts of the same, and the plain, definite plan given by this company reveals the fact that they know what is needed and will give it to us." The financial town meeting of said town, held November 6, 1906, acting upon said report of said town council, passed the following resolution: "Resolved, that the sum of $2,250, or so much thereof as may be necessary, be and hereby is appropriated for the reconstruction and renewal of the heating and ventilating apparatus in the town hall building. Said sum to be expended under the supervision of the town council, as recommended in their report of to-day. Resolved, that the town treasurer be authorized to hire a sufficient sum to meet the above expenditure." The petition alleges that, relying upon the action of the town council and of said financial town meeting, the petitioner had procured the necessary materials for the fulfilling of said contract, and had expended considerable sums of money for drawings and other services incidental to the installation of said heating apparatus, and has always, from the time of the acceptance of said bid by said town, as aforesaid, by said resolution aforesaid, been ready and willing, and is now ready and willing, and hereby offers, to enter upon and complete said contract and to install said heating apparatus in accordance with said plans and specifications and bid of August 16, 1906. At a meeting of the town council of said town, on December 15, 1906, the following motion was made: "That the contract for the reconstruction of the heating and ventilating system of the town building be and hereby is awarded to the Putnam Foundry & Machine Company of Providence, R. I., as per the specification and accompanying bid of said company under date of August 16, 1906." Upon being put to vote, this motion was lost by a vote of three to two.

On February 9, 1907, the petitioner made a formal demand in writing upon said town council to execute said contract, but said town council has neglected and refused so to do. The respondents demurred to the petition upon the following grounds: (1) That the statements contained in the third paragraph of said petition are inconsistent and contradictory; (2) that the petitioner, under the allegations of the petition, has no such legal right as to enable it to maintain the petition; (3) that the petition fails to show any neglect of duty or refusal to perform any acts required of the respondents under the law; (4) that the petition does not show clearly what was the recommendation of the former town council to the electors of the town; (5) that the petition does not show when the sum appropriated by the financial town meeting for the reconstruction and renewal of the heating and ventilating apparatus in the town hall building was to be expended; (6) that the petition shows that the resolution passed by the financial town meeting called for the exercise of discretion and official judgment on the part of the respondents; (7) that the petition shows that it is an attempt to obtain a review or reversal of a decision already made by said respondents in a matter involving discretion; (8) that the petition shows that it is an attempt to establish a right, and not to enforce a right, already established. The court below sustained the demurrer on the ground that the resolution of the financial town meeting did not constitute an acceptance of petitioner's offer and was not a mandatory direction to the town council. From the decree sustaining the demurrer, the petitioner appealed, assigning the following reasons of...