Reno Water, Land & Light Co. v. Osburn
Citation | 56 P. 945,25 Nev. 53 |
Decision Date | 17 April 1899 |
Docket Number | 1,545. |
Parties | RENO WATER, LAND & LIGHT CO. v. OSBURN et al., City Council. |
Court | Supreme Court of Nevada |
Appeal from district court, Washoe county; A. E. Cheney, Judge.
Action by the Reno Water, Land & Light Company against R. S. Osburn and others, as the city council of the city of Reno, for an injunction. There was a decree for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed.
Torreyson & Summerfield, for appellants.
Curler & Curler, Oscar J. Smith, and A. E. Cheney, for respondent.
The city council of the city of Reno submitted the question to the electors whether or not the city should borrow the sum of $150,000 for the purpose of procuring water and the erection of waterworks for the city, and at the same time submitted the question whether or not the city should borrow the sum of $20,000 for the purpose of establishing an electric light plant for lighting the streets and houses of the city. Both questions having been answered in the affirmative, the council caused the following notice to be published . Bids and proposals, with plans and specifications, were received, under the notice; and the council, believing that the bid of the firm of Schaw, Ingram, Batcher & Co. was the best, were about to enter into a contract with that firm for a water supply and waterworks, when this suit was commenced for the purpose of enjoining defendants therefrom. Upon the trial a decree was entered perpetually restraining defendants from entering into the proposed contract, and also with the Ft. Wayne Electric Corporation.
One of the questions presented by the appeal is whether or not it was the duty of the council to have adopted plans and specifications for a water system before receiving bids. Section 16 of the charter provides that all laws not inconsistent shall remain in full force until otherwise provided. It is claimed, under this provision, that an act passed February 19, 1867 (St. 1867, p. 59), requiring boards of county commissioners, in letting contracts amounting to $500, to advertise and let them to the lowest responsible bidder, and, when plans and specifications are to constitute part of such contract, it shall be stated in the notice where...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Craig v. Harrah
...... . . Harlan. L. Heward, of Reno, for respondent. . . HORSEY,. ... light of the pleadings in the case and in the light of the. ...705; Joudas v. Squire, 50 Nev. 42, 249 P. 1068; Water Co. v. Tonopah Belmont Development Co., 49 Nev. 172, 241 ... alone . Corbett v. Job, 5 Nev. 201; Reno. Water Land & Light Co. v. Osburn, 25 Nev. 53, 56 P. 945.' (Italics ......
-
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Clark County
...601 (1972). Whether such relief is available in Nevada is not settled. See: Hoole v. Kinkead, 16 Nev. 217 (1881); Reno W. L. & L. Co. v. Osburn, 25 Nev. 53, 56 P. 945 (1899); Douglas Co. Board v. Pederson, 78 Nev. 106, 369 P.2d 669 (1962); Wiener v. City of Reno, 88 Nev. 127, 494 P.2d 277 (......
-
Douglas County Bd. of County Com'rs v. Pederson
...here discussed, and their decision can not be disturbed in this proceeding.' Of interest also is dictum in Reno Water, Land & Light Company v. Osburn, 25 Nev. 53, 66, 56 P. 945, 946, an injunction suit, where the court said: 'Under provisions requiring proposals to be awarded to the lowest ......
-
Werner v. Babcock
......Corbett v. Job,. 5 Nev. 201; Reno W. L. & L. Co., v. Osburn, 25 Nev. 53, 56 P. 945. It has ......