Reiter v. Chapman

• Citation: 31 P.2d 1005,177 Wash. 392
• Decision Date: 25 April 1934
• Docket Number: 24885.
• Parties: REITER v. CHAPMAN et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

31 P.2d 1005

177 Wash. 392

REITER v. CHAPMAN et al.

No. 24885.

Supreme Court of Washington

April 25, 1934

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Charles F. Riddell, Judge pro tem.

Action by Bernard Reiter against Horace P. Chapman and others, as Commissioners of the Port of Seattle, and the Converse Company, Incorporated. Decree for plaintiff, and the Converse Company, Incorporated, appeals.

Affirmed.

Caldwell & Lycette, of Seattle, for appellant.

Alfred J. Schweppe and Winlock Miller, Jr., both of Seattle, for respondents.

BEALS Chief Justice.

Plaintiff a taxpayer of the Port of Seattle district, instituted this action against the commissioners of the Port of Seattle and the Converse Company, Inc., a corporation, for the purpose of obtaining a decree enjoining the performance of written contracts, dated May 25, 1933, between the Port of Seattle (hereinafter referred to as the Port) and the Converse Company, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Converse), whereby Converse contends that the Port purchased materials comprising a fire-protection system for the Bell Street Terminal, owned and operated by the Port, for the sum of $18,950; Converse agreeing, by a second writing, to install the system for an additional $2,000. The trial resulted in a decree enjoining the defendants from carrying out the contracts. From this decree defendant Converse alone has appealed.

Appellant assigns error upon the ruling of the trial court overruling its demurrer to respondent's complaint, upon the refusal of the court to grant appellant's motions, respectively for a nonsuit and a dismissal of the action, upon the ruling of the court to the effect that the contracts of purchase and installation hereinabove referred to were void, and upon the entry of the decree permanently enjoining further proceedings thereunder.

But a single question is presented on this appeal: Whether, under the law, the Port of Seattle can purchase the material referred to in the argeement with Converse without having previously advertised for bids. The pertinent portion of the statute governing purchases by a port commission is found in Rem. Rev. Stat. § 9693, and reads as follows: 'All materials required by the port district may be purchased in the open market or by contract, and all work ordered may be let by contract or done by day labor as the port commission may determine. Before awarding any contract the port commission shall cause to be published in some newspaper within the district a notice for at least ten days Before the letting of such contract, inviting sealed proposals for such work, plans and specifications for which must at the time of publication of such notice be on file in the office of the port commission subject to public inspection: Provided however, that port commission may at the same time and as part of the same notice, invite tenders for such work or material upon plans and specifications to be submitted by the bidder. Such notice shall state generally the work to be done and shall call for proposals for doing the same to be sealed and filed with the commission on or Before the day and hour named. Each bid shall be accompanied by a certified check payable to the order of the port commission for a sum not less than five per cent of the amount of the bid, and no bid shall be considered unless accompanied by such check. At the time and place named such bids shall be publicly opened and read and the commission shall proceed to canvass the bids and may let such contract to the lowest responsible bidder upon plans and specifications on file, or to the best bidder submitting his own plans and specifications. If, in the opinion of the commission all bids are unsatisfactory, they may reject all of them and readvertise, and in such case all checks shall be returned to the bidders; but if such contract be let; then in such case all checks shall be returned to the bidders, except that of the successful bidder, which shall be retained until a contract shall be entered into for the purchase of such materials or doing such work, and a bond given to the port district for the performance of the contract and otherwise conditioned as required by law, with sureties satisfactory to the commissioners, in an amount to be fixed by the commission, but not in any event less than twenty-five (25) per cent of the contract price. If said bidder fails to enter into said contract in accordance with said bid and furnish such bond within ten days from the date at which he is notified that he is the successful bidder, the said check and the amount thereof shall be forfeited to the port district.'

The facts giving rise to this litigation may be stated briefly as follows, there being little, if any, controversy between the parties as to the facts: The Port has for many years operated in the city of Seattle the Bell Street Terminal and the Lenora Street Docks. It was conceded that these properties were very inadequately protected against loss by fire, both in regard to the fire-alarm system and the facilities for fire control. Prior to the year 1933, officers of the Port had been investigating fire-protection devices, with a view to the installation of a better system. During the month of April, 1933, Converse submitted to the Port a proposal looking toward the installation of its equipment, and the matter was considered at a meeting of the commissioners held April 25. At the suggestion of a competing company, the matter was continued to May 12, and then until May 16, at which time a majority of the commissioners passed a resolution directing the proper officers of the Port to enter into a contract with Converse for the purchase and installation of its 'Auto call' system. Immediately thereafter, three contracts were entered into between the Port and Converse, covering various portions of the proposed installation, whereupon summons and complaint were served in an action wherein the plaintiff in this cause was plaintiff; the relief sought being an injunction against the execution and carrying out of the contracts. Shortly thereafter, the Port, by resolution, annulled and canceled the three contracts above referred to, and ordered that the equipment desired be purchased in the open market. The commissioners of the Port further resolved that the work of installing the materials be done by day labor under the supervision of the Port's chief engineer. Contracts were forthwith signed between the Port and Converse providing for the purchase of the materials by the Port and for the installation thereof by Converse under supervision of the Port's engineer. This suit was thereupon instituted to enjoin further proceedings in the premises, with the result above stated.

Appellant argues, in the first place, that, in the absence of an express statute, no public advertising or competition is required in making public purchases or letting public contracts. In support of this proposition, many authorities are cited. The rule is laid down in 19 R. C. L. 1068 as...