Saunders v. Iowa City
Decision Date | 11 April 1907 |
Citation | 111 N.W. 529,134 Iowa 132 |
Parties | SAUNDERS v. IOWA CITY ET AL. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Johnson County; O. A. Byington, Judge.
Suit in equity to enjoin defendants from making certain improvements by paving a street in defendant city, from letting a contract for said paving to defendant Horrabin, and from assessing the cost of said improvement to abutting property owners. The trial court dismissed the petition, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.Baldwin & Fairchild and Read & Read, for appellant.
W. J. McDonald, Bailey & Murphy, and M. J. Wade, for appellees.
The question of paving what is known as “Iowa Avenue” in the city of Iowa City became a matter of public concern, and the city council of that city undertook an investigation as to the best material to be used for that purpose. Pursuant thereto it instructed its engineer to make an investigation, and as a result thereof he recommended the use of what is known as “Bitulithic pavement.” Brick was discarded for various reasons which need not be enumerated, and this left nothing but asphalt or bitulithic for use in improving the street. After the engineer had made his report a majority of the owners of property abutting upon the street petitioned the city council, asking it to curb and pave the thoroughfare, and recommended that the bitulithic pavement be used. Plaintiff, however, did not join in this petition. Pursuant to the petition the council passed a resolution for the pavement of the street, and directed its civil engineer to prepare plans and specifications for the work, and the city clerk was authorized to advertise for bids for paving the avenue with Warren Bros.' bitulithic pavement. This was done, but before any bids were received the Warren Bros. Company filed with the city council the following statement: This statement was dated May 15th, but was not filed, as we understand it, until May 26, 1905. The time fixed for hearing objections to the resolution for paving was May 5, 1905, and before that date plaintiff and others filed protests against the improvements, which were finally overruled on May 5th, and at that time the resolution to pave with the bitulithic substance was passed. Pursuant to the advertisement for bids, six were filed, ranging from $1.96 to $2.16 per square yard. The bid of the Barber Asphalt Paving Company being the lowest, it was awarded the contract on June 23, 1905. By the terms of that contract the asphalt company was to begin work within 15 days after the agreement became binding. As the Barber Company did not comply with this part of the contract, it was canceled on July 14, 1905, and the clerk was directed to readvertise for bids. This was done, and at the time fixed for the receipt of the second bids three were received ranging from $1.98 to $2.20 per square yard. Defendant Horrabin being the lowest bidder the contract was awarded to him, August 16, 1905. Thereafter the time given him for commencing the work was extended to August 16, 1906.
This action to enjoin defendant city and its council from entering into a contract with Horrabin and to declare any contract made with him void and for other purposes was commenced in July of the year 1905. Both the contract with the Barber Asphalt Company and with Horrabin provided that the paving be laid with Warren Bros.' bitulithic pavement, to be purchased from Warren Bros. Company, and mixed with Warren's Puritan brand No. 21 bituminous waterproof cement or bituminous cement, the wearing surface to be spread with Warren's quickdrying bituminous flush coat composition; and the contract with Horrabin also contained these provisions:
As will be observed the action was commenced before the contract with Horrabin was let, and the letting of the contract, as well as the making of the improvement and the making of any assessment for the cost thereof, is sought to be enjoined, and the cancellation of the contract is also asked. Appellant relies on the following propositions:
It is conceded that the Warren Bros.' bitulithic pavement is a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hoffman v. City of Muscatine, 39941.
...thus projected into the discussion has heretofore had the very careful consideration of this court in Saunders v. City of Iowa City, 134 Iowa, 132, 111 N. W. 529, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 392. The same patent and the same patentee were involved in that case that are involved in this one. The same......
-
Eckerle v. Ferris
... ... McPherren & Maurer and Tench Tilghman, all of Oklahoma City, for ... plaintiffs in error ... Mac Q ... Williamson, Atty. Gen., and ... the facts stated we assume that it is not ... The ... Supreme Court of Iowa in two cases, Saunders v. City of ... Iowa City, 134 Iowa, 132, 111 N.W. 529, 9 L.R.A. (N.S.) ... ...
-
Hoffman v. City of Muscatine
...the contract." The foregoing fully answers the fundamental arguments urged by appellants herein. The alleged illegality of the bids in the Saunders case was predicated upon the same grounds as presented in appellants' argument except that there was no charge of actual fraud. The fundamental......
-
Eckerle v. Ferris
...case, but from the facts stated we assume that it is not. ¶54 The Supreme Court of Iowa in two cases, Saunders v. City of Iowa, 134 Iowa 132, 111 N.W. 529, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 392, and in Hoffman v. City of Muscatine, 212 Iowa 867, 232 N.W. 430, 77 A. L. R. 680, held that provision for compe......