R.O. Bromagin & Co. v. City of Bloomington

• Decision Date: 23 April 1908
• Citation: 84 N.E. 700,234 Ill. 114
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: R. O. BROMAGIN & CO. v. CITY OF BLOOMINGTON et al.

234 Ill. 114

84 N.E. 700

R. O. BROMAGIN & CO.

v.CITY OF BLOOMINGTON et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 23, 1908.

Appeal from Appellate Court, Third District, on Appeal from Circuit Court, McLean County; C. D. Myers, Judge.

Bill by R. O. Bromagin & Co. against the city of Bloomington and others to correct or rescind a bid to construct a public improvement. From a judgment of the Appellate Court for the Third District affirming a decree rescinding the bid and restraining the forfeiture or collection of a check accompanying it, defendants appeal. Affirmed.Louis Fitzhenry, City Atty., for appellants.

Stone & Oglevee, for appellees.

This is an appeal by the city of Bloomington and board of local improvements of that city from a judgment of the Appellate Court for the Third District affirming a decree of the circuit court of McLean county rescinding a bid submitted by R. O. Bromagin & Co. to appellants to construct a certain water main in said city, and restraining appellants from declaring a forfeiture of or collecting a certified check for the sum of $2,800, which accompanied the said bid.

The bill as amended alleges, in substance, that on July 22, 1906, the board of local improvements of the city of Bloomington published a notice to contractors that sealed proposals for the furnishing and laying of a certain water main in said city would be received until 2 o'clock of August 3, 1906; that pursuant to said notice appellees obtained a copy of the specifications and proceeded at once with due diligence to prepare their bid for such work, and in so doing, while in the exercise of due diligence, by a clerical error a mistake was made in their bid, which was not discovered by them until after the said contract had been awarded to them by said board of local improvements; that said mistake consisted in carrying over into the column containing the price per foot of 16-inch pipe the figures representing the weight per foot; and that by reason of said mistake the bid of appellees was more than $6,000 less than the bid intended to have been made by them. The bill further alleges that said mistake was noticed and commented upon by said board when said bid was opened and read; that as soon as appellees discovered said mistake, and within five hours after the contract had been awarded appellees, and before the said city had done anything to alter its situation, they notified said board of local improvements, and sought to have such mistake corrected, and offered to pay any necessary expenses that would be caused by a reletting of said contract, and also offered to lay the said 16-inch pipe at cost, but said board refused, and still refuses, to allow such correction to be made, and insists upon appellees signing the contract for such work and giving bond as provided in the ordinance and specifications, and in default thereof the said board threatens to declare a forfeiture of a certain certified check of the amount of $2,800 deposited with said board by appellees. The bill prays that said bid may be corrected so as to embody the intention of the parties, or that its acceptance by said board be rescinded, and that the city be enjoined from collecting or declaring a forfeiture of the check.

An answer and replication thereto were filed, and the cause referred to the master to take proofs and report his findings and conclusions. The answer denies that appellees proceeded with usual and necessary care in preparing their bid, and avers that, if any mistake was made, it was through their gross carelessness and lack of diligence in its preparation; avers that appellees delivered said bid to said board on August 3, 1906, shortly after 2 o'clock p. m. of said day, and that said contract was awarded to them on August 24, 1906, and that for the space of three weeks appellees, while retaining a copy of said bid, allowed the same to remain with said board, and during that time made no complaint to any of appellants in regard to said bid; denies that said mistake was noticed or commented upon by said board, and avers that if such was the case the said board was not bound to revise the said bid nor to inform appellees of their view concerning it; avers that the city of Bloomington was greatly damaged through the negligence and carelessness of appellees in making their bid, if such bid was a mistake, as alleged in said bill; that the work has been necessarily delayed for more than one year, and that an advertisement was made to relet said contract and no bidders appeared; admits that appellants refused to allow appellees to correct their bid, and that they intend to declare a forfeiture of said $2,800 check.

Upon a hearing the master found, in substance, that appellees were not guilty of negligence before the awarding of said bid, and that in the preparation of said bid by mistake they had inserted in the column set spart for the cost per foot of 16-inch pipe the weight per foot of said piep; that within five hours after the awarding...