Standard Highway Co., Inc. v. Police Jury of Tangipahoa Parish

• Decision Date: 09 March 1925
• Docket Number: 26944
• Citation: 158 La. 294,103 So. 819
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: STANDARD HIGHWAY CO., Inc., v. POLICE JURY OF TANGIPAHOA PARISH et al

103 So. 819

158 La. 294

STANDARD HIGHWAY CO., Inc., v. POLICE JURY OF TANGIPAHOA PARISH et al

No. 26944

Supreme Court of Louisiana

March 9, 1925

Rehearing Denied April 9, 1925

Appeal from Twenty-Fifth Judicial District Court, Parish of Tangipahoa; Robert S. Ellis, Judge.

Action by the Standard Highway Company, Inc., against the Police Jury of Tangipahoa Parish and others. Judgment for plaintiff and defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Harry Gamble, of New Orleans, for appellant S. A. Gano.

Benton & Benton, of Baton Rouge, for appellee.

Milling Godchaux, Saal & Milling, of New Orleans, amicus curiae.

OPINION

O'NIELL, C. J.

The defendants have appealed from a judgment annulling a contract for the graveling of the public highways of a road district. It is called Consolidated Road District A. in the parish of Tangipahoa. The plaintiff, a contracting company, claims to have been the lowest bidder for the work. The defendants, appellants, are the police jury, the board of supervisors of the road district, and S. A. Gano, the bidder to whom the contract was awarded.

There were five or six bidders for the work, but the only contest, as to who was the lowest bidder was between the plaintiff and Gano. In fact, there is no dispute as to whose bid was the lowest, for Gano's bid amounted to $ 17,153.88 more than plaintiff's bid; Gano's bid being $ 368,862.60, and plaintiff's being $ 351,708.72. The question is whether the board of supervisors was justified in rejecting plaintiff's bid and awarding the contract to Gano, the next lowest bidder.

The transcript of the testimony is very brief, for there is no dispute about the facts. The only witness for the defendants was the chairman of the board of supervisors. He admitted that the reason why the board rejected or "disregarded," plaintiff's bid for furnishing and spreading the gravel -- or the portion of it called sand-clay or bank-run gravel -- was that plaintiff's foreman had said that the gravel was to come from the local pits or beds in Tangipahoa parish, whereas Gano intended to bring his gravel from his own pits, in Washington parish. The witness said that the board had had the board's engineer inspect Gano's gravel beds, and had the engineer's report and analysis, before the board advertised for bids for the work; and that the board was satisfied with the quality of the gravel in the Gano beds. The witness testified that the board knew also the quality of the gravel in the local pits, in Tangipahoa parish, and was not willing that that kind of gravel should be used in the work to be done. The specifications, however, on which the board called for the bids, did not require that the gravel should come from the Gano beds, or be of the same kind or quality as the gravel in the Gano beds. The specifications in that respect -- as to how the gravel should be tested or screened -- were very explicit; and it was stipulated in the specifications that, if the board's engineer should find that any of the gravel furnished did not come up to the specifications, he could compel the contractor to remove it at his expense, even after the gravel was in place. The chairman of the board admitted, in his testimony, that the board was fully protected by the specifications for the kind and quality of gravel. It was not stipulated in the contract that was let to the defendant, Gano, and which is in contest that the gravel should come from his pits, or from any particular place. The chairman of the board testified that the board forgot to stipulate in the contract with Gano that the gravel should come from his pits, or be of the kind or quality in his pits. All of which leaves great doubt that it was at all important that the gravel should come from Gano's pits...