State, Ex Rel., v. Bldg. Comm.
| Citation | 124 Ohio St. 413,179 N.E. 138 |
| Decision Date | 16 December 1931 |
| Docket Number | 23206 |
| Parties | The State, Ex Rel. United District Heating, Inc., v. State Office Building Commission Et Al. * * Reporter's Note. See Volume 125 Ohio State Reports For Ruling On Demurrer To Petition. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
Mandamus - Contract for steam and electrical transmission lines to State Office Building - Writ lies to compel award to lowest bidder - Employment of nonunion labor insufficient ground for canceling award.
IN MANDAMUS.
Messrs Stanley, Horwitz & Kiefer, for relator.
Mr Gilbert Bettman, attorney general, Mr. E. C. Shively, Mr. L F. Laylin and Mr. Joseph V. Ralston, for respondents.
This is an action in mandamus filed in this court, wherein the relator seeks a writ compelling the defendants to enter into a contract with the relator for the construction of a steam and electric transmission line from the Ohio Penitentiary to the State Office Building, in the city of Columbus, and to accept the relator's bond filed therewith. The cause was presented to this court upon a demurrer to the petition of the relator. While the petition contains a detailed history of the transaction, the salient facts contained in the petition and conceded to be true by the demurrer are as follows:
Under authority and pursuant to an enabling act passed by the state, the State Building Commission published notice asking for sealed proposals for the construction of said steam and electric transmission line, which notice provided that each bid should be accompanied by a bond. Pursuant to that notice on October 5, 1931, fourteen bids were received for the construction of the project, and the bid of the relator amounting to $72,965, was the lowest in amount of the bids submitted, being about four thousand dollars lower than any other proposal. With his proposal the relator filed his bond as required by law. The State Building Commission on the day last named adjourned until the following day, October 6 1931, at 9:30 a. m., when it was to award the contract. On October 6, 1931, on the recommendation of the architect, the relator's bid was accepted, and a resolution was passed by the commission awarding the contract to the relator for said sum, which resolution was concurred in by all members of the commission then present. Thereupon the chairman of the commission notified relator's repre- sentative that the resolution had been carried with the understanding that the contract and bond must be approved by the Attorney General. This was assented to by the relator. Shortly thereafter, upon inquiry of the chairman of the commission as to whether relator employed union labor, and upon relator's answer that it operated upon an open shop basis and hired its workmen without discrimination as to their affiliation with a labor union, the chairman of the commission informed relator's representative that, because of relator's said policy, the commission had voted to rescind its former action in awarding the contract to the relator; the chairman and other members of the commission then notifying the relator's representative "that they could not award the said contract to relator because it did not employ exclusively union men." The petition further alleges that the relator's employees are citizens and taxpayers of the state; that the commission is in possession of its bond to secure the performance of the contract, which it refuses to enter into with the relator; and specifically it alleges that the attempted rescission of its award by the commission "was brought about solely because of the fact that in the performance of said contract relator purposed to employ workmen, citizens of the State of Ohio, without regard to their affiliation or...
To continue reading
Request your trial