Rollins v. City of Salem

• Decision Date: 27 February 1925
• Citation: 146 N.E. 795,251 Mass. 468
• Parties: ROLLINS et al. v. CITY OF SALEM et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

251 Mass. 468

146 N.E. 795

ROLLINS et al.

v.CITY OF SALEM et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex.

Feb. 27, 1925.

Appeal from Supreme Judicial Court, Essex County.

Bill by Nana B. Rollins and others against the City of Salem and others, to enjoin alleged illegal payment to consulting engineers for passing on plans of proposed school building. From a decree dismissing the bill, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Wm. E. Sisk and Richard L. Sisk, both of Lynn, for appellants.

Wm. A. Pew, of Salem, for appellees.

BRALEY, J.

It appears from the allegations of the bill, the admissions in the answer of the defendants the city of Salem and George J. Bates, the mayor, and the master's report, that on January 7, 1924, when the mayor and other municipal officers who are joined as respondents assumed office, the preceding administration, after advertising for competitive bids, had entered into an alleged contract with the John C. Bickford Company, a corporation, to prepare and furnish preliminary plans and specifications for an addition to the ‘Phillips School,’ and if the plans were accepted to act during its construction as supervising architect. The preliminary and final plans having been approved, the city advertised for bids for the work of construction. The lowest bid was $253,673. It was not accepted, and new bids were called for, the lowest of which was $249,850. This bid also has not been accepted. But if taken as a basis for computation of the 6 per centum named in the architect's contract as compensation, the amount as stated by the master is $14,991, of which it has received $9,132.22, leaving $5,858.78 unpaid. The city council, however, had appropriated $150,000 for procuring additional land, and for the erection of the addition, including the fees of the architect, which had been raised by the issue of bonds, and the appropriation was to be expended under the direction of the mayor and a special committee of three members of the council. The defendant Bates upon inauguration was thus confronted with the question of building the addition at a cost which would require further appropriations, and the master reports that acting in good faith, and with sound discretion, and for the best interests of the taxpayers, and with knowledge of the city's financial condition, he considered the cost a matter of such serious importance as to call for an investigation to determine whether by a change of plans the cost could be materially reduced. It is found that without calling for competitive bids, but with ‘the approval of the special committee, and the school committee, * * * the mayor employed the firm of McLaughlin & Burr as consulting engineers of experience in designing schoolhouses to determine whether * * * it was feasible to build a satisfactory schoolhouse addition fulfilling the requirements' as previously described in the report, ‘for $200,000 or less, and to prepare and present preliminary plans showing what could be done for that amount.’ They were to receive $1,500 for their services, to be paid from the appropriation of $150,000. It is not alleged that the amount is excessive, or that the appropriation upon the order of the mayor and special committee cannot be used in payment. The petitioners, who are more than ten taxable...