S.J. Groves & Sons Co. v. Oklahoma City
| Decision Date | 22 September 1942 |
| Docket Number | 30626. |
| Citation | 129 P.2d 185,191 Okla. 276,1942 OK 304 |
| Parties | S. J. GROVES & SONS CO. et al. v. OKLAHOMA CITY et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. An objection to the introduction of evidence is equivalent to a demurrer to the petition, and in passing thereon the petition must be liberally construed, and all facts well pleaded together with all inferences which may be reasonably drawn therefrom, must be taken as admitted to be true.
2. Where an administrative officer or board has exercised discretion in the performance of an act not purely ministerial, the courts will not control or review the exercise of such discretion by mandamus, except in a case wherein it clearly appears that there has been an arbitrary abuse thereof.
3. Where the petition alleged that the rejection of the bid made by plaintiffs on a public work project of Oklahoma City was arbitrary and capricious, and the facts alleged, together with the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, were not sufficient to show that the rejection of the bid was an abuse of the discretion exercised by defendants in accordance with the city charter, an objection to the introduction of evidence was properly sustained.
Appeal from District Court, Oklahoma County; Albert C. Hunt, Judge.
Mandamus proceedings by S. J. Groves & Sons Company and others against the City of Oklahoma City and others, to compel the City of Oklahoma City to accept plaintiffs' bid for the construction of a dam and canal in connection with a city water project. From an adverse judgment, the plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
O. A Cargill, John Barry, and Rittenhouse, Webster, Hanson & Rittenhouse, all of Oklahoma City, for plaintiffs in error.
A. L Jeffrey, Municipal Counselor, and Leon Shipp, Asst. Municipal Counselor, both of Oklahoma City, for defendants in error.
Plaintiffs S. J. Groves & Sons Co., Joseph A. Bass, E. C. Ottinger and Clyde Ottinger seek by mandamus to compel the city of Oklahoma City to accept their bid for the construction of a dam and canal in connection with the city water project at Bluff Creek. The city filed a return to the alternative writ. When the matter came on for hearing, the city objected to the introduction of evidence for the reason that the petition and alternative writ failed to state facts sufficient to entitle plaintiffs to a writ against the defendants. The objection was sustained, and plaintiffs elected to stand on their petition. The trial court thereupon dismissed the cause, and plaintiffs appeal.
The petition alleged that the city had voted a bond issue of $6,911,000 for the construction of the water project, and that the city advertised for bids for the construction of the dam and canal three different times; that upon each occasion the plaintiffs were the only bidders, and that the bid made by them, $3,787,442, was upon each occasion rejected by the city; that defendants, after rejecting the last bid, decided to do the work on force account, renting the necessary equipment and hiring the labor, which, it is alleged, was contrary to the provisions of the city charter and the state law, and which will make the cost of the water project exceed the amount of the bond issue; that the bids submitted by plaintiffs were in excess of the estimates of the city engineer for the construction of the dam and canal, but were within the bond issue; that plaintiffs did not know why the defendants would not consider their bids, and charged that the defendants failed to exercise fair and impartial judgment and discretion in considering their bids, but acted arbitrarily and capriciously in the rejection thereof, and were influenced by bias and favoritism; that the bids submitted by plaintiffs were fair and reasonable, based upon mathematical calculation, and not disproportionate to the estimated actual cost of construction. The prayer was that defendants be required to rescind their action in rejecting the bid submitted by plaintiffs, and their decision to rent equipment and do the work on force account, and that the court order and direct the defendants to accept the bid of plaintiffs and enter into a contract with them for the construction of the dam and canal.
The return of the defendants averred that they rejected the bid of plaintiffs upon the advice of the city manager and city engineer, and after giving the matter due consideration; that the bid was excessive by more than $500,000, and that it was determined to rent equipment and do the work on force account because it would cost less; that the advertisements for bids reserved the right to reject any and all bids, and that by the city charter defendants are authorized to reject all bids for public...
To continue reading
Request your trial