Sellitto v. Grove Tp., 244.
| Decision Date | 14 July 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. 244.,244. |
| Citation | 38 A.2d 185,132 N.J.L. 29 |
| Parties | SELLITTO v. CEDAR GROVE TP. et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Certiorari proceeding by Nicholas Sellitto to review an award to C. D. Marangi of a contract to collect and dispose of garbage, ashes, and refuse of the Township of Cedar Grove, a municipal corporation.
Award set aside.
May term, 1944, before CASE, BODINE, and PORTER, JJ.
Thomas Brunetto, of Newark, and Joseph C. Cassini, of Orange, for prosecutor.
Samuel W. Boardman, Jr., and Fred G. Stickel, III, both of Cedar Grove, for respondent Cedar Grove Tp.
Alfred J. Grosso, of Orange, for respondent C. D. Marangi.
The writ brings up an award to C. D. Marangi of a contract to collect and dispose of the garbage, ashes and refuse of the Township of Cedar Grove, County of Essex. Marangi had been doing that work. His contract year was to expire on April 1, 1944, and the Board of Commissioners of the Township, pursuant to a resolution passed by them, advertised for bids for the ensuing year, all such proposals to be addressed to the Board, in care of the Township Clerk. In due season the Board met and received and opened the bids, which were as follows:
‘Nick Sellitto $6,500.00
M. Iommetti & Sons 6,499.00
C. D. Marangi 7,200.00
The matter of award was, on motion, laid over for two weeks, and at the adjourned meeting the board, on the assigned reason that the bids were too high for the service to be rendered, rejected all bids and directed the Clerk to readvertise. At the appointed time the Board again met, received and opened bids. Then there were only two bids, as follows:
N. Sellitto $5,749.00
C. D. Marangi 6,400.00The minutes show that: ‘On motion of Mayor Tierney, duly seconded, action on the above listed proposals was laid over for investigation.’ At a meeting held three weeks later the Board received a report from Mayor Tierney to the effect that on his calculation Sellitto would not make any profit at his bid figure of $5,749 and further that Sellitto had never before had a contract with a municipality; and thereupon the Board made the award to Marangi at his bid of $6,400.
Thus, one set of bids was rejected on the theory that the low bids of $6,499 and $6,500 (Sellitto's) were too high; and on readvertisement Sellitto's low bid of $5,749 was rejected because it was too low; and the award went to Marangi, always the high bidder, at only $99 less then the earlier bid of M. Iommetti & Sons, and $100 less than the original bid of Sellitto. That bare summary permits the inference that the constant purpose, as well as the ultimate result, was to make the award to Marangi. The legal question is whether the award was made to ‘the lowest responsible bidder’, in obedience to R.S. 40:50-1, N.J.S.A.
The point sought to be made against Sellitto is that he was not ‘responsible’, and the facts upon which the point is rested are that he had not made his price high enough to allow himself a profit and that he had not previously had a municipal contract. Sellitto's sound financial and moral integrity are not in dispute; and since that is so the concern of the Commission over his taking the job without profit rather loses force. It may well be, as he said the fact was, that he would make his profit on other jobs that would work in with his contract. The municipality never questioned, and does not now question, that Sellitto had the necessary equipment for the work. The contract was of the sort generally referred to as a ‘scavenger contract’. True, Sellitto had never had such a contract, or perhaps any contract, with a municipality. But he had had experience over a number of years as scavenger in the Township of Hanover-not for the Township as his informal questionnaire mistakenly stated, but under private employment within the Township, as was certified to Cedar Grove Township by the Township Clerk of Hanover Township in these words: It is not clear what...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Air Terminal Services, Inc., Application of
...Haw. at 157-158.14 See note 24, infra.15 Clearly distinguishable are review proceedings such as were involved in Sellito v. Township of Cedar Grove, 132 N.J.L. 29, 38 A.2d 185; Ward La France Truck Corp. v. City of New York, 7 Misc.2d 739, 160 N.Y.S.2d 679 (Sp. Term, N.Y. County).16 Their r......
-
Trap Rock Industries, Inc. v. Kohl
...Paving Contractor, Inc. v. City Council of Orange, 89 N.J.Super. 93, 98--99, 213 A.2d 865 (App.Div.1965); Sellitto v. Cedar Grove, 132 N.J.L. 29, 32, 38 A.2d 185 (Sup.Ct.1944). The low bidder is sometimes said to have acquired a That he has an interest of some character which will support a......
-
Asbury Park Press v. City of Asbury Park
...to perform the contract. Paterson Contracting Co. v. City of Hackensack, 99 N.J.L. 260, 263, 122 A. 741 (E. & A.1923); Sellitto v. Cedar Grove, 132 N.J.L. 29, 33, 38 A.id 185 (Sup.Ct.1944); cf. Peluso v. Commissioners of City of Hoboken, 98 N.J.L. 706, 708, 126 A. 623 (Sup.Ct.1923); Barber ......
-
M. A. Stephen Const. Co. v. Borough of Rumson
...Supra, at 322. But see, Paterson Contracting Co. v. Hackensack, 99 N.J.L. 260, 264, 122 A. 741 (E. & A.1923); Sellitto v. Cedar Grove, 132 N.J.L. 29, 33, 38 A.2d 185 (Sup.Ct.1944). The public interest is served by permitting suits to enforce the policy of competitive bidding. A low bidder i......