State v. Cote
| Decision Date | 05 April 1949 |
| Citation | 65 A.2d 280 |
| Parties | STATE v. COTE et al. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Reserved and Transferred from Superior Court, Merrimack County; Leahy, Judge.
Suit by the State against Donat F. Cote and others, for an accounting of money received and expended under allegedly void contracts and for return of sums paid in excess of reasonable value of work and materials. Defendants' exception to an order overruling their demurrer was reserved, and the case was transferred to the Supreme Court.
Demurrer overruled.
Bill in equity, for an accounting of all moneys received and explained under certain allegedly void contracts and for the return of all sums paid in excess of the reasonable value of the work and materials. The bill, which was filed April 6, 1948, alleged that since July 1, 1946 the defendants had performed work for and furnished materials to the plaintiff on a cost plus basis in an amount exceeding seven hundred thousand dollars under chapter 294 of the Laws of 1947 and chapter 210 of the Laws of 1945. It also alleged that most of the labor and materials were furnished under contracts awarded to the defendants by the state comptroller without authority and in violation of chapter 294 of the Laws of 1947. A further allegation was that the right of recovery and the extent thereof could not be ascertained accurately and completely without a complete examination of the records, books, accounts, files, letters, memoranda and other papers of the defendants relating to the labor and materials furnished the State, which examination was refused by the defendants except upon conditions alleged to be unreasonable.
This is the same case that is reported in 95 N.H. 108, 58 A.2d 749, to which reference is made for further statements of facts and to which some consideration was given in the case of State v. Cote, 95 N.H. 248, 61 A.2d 710.
The defendants demurred to the bill in equity on the ground that it did not allege sufficient facts to entitle the plaintiff to the relief prayed for, and that the plaintiff had a plain and adequate remedy at law.
The demurrer was overruled, and the exception of the defendants to the order was reserved and transferred by Leahy, J.
Before submission of the case on briefs on March 23, 1949, the bankruptcy of Standard Construction Co. Inc. was suggested.
Ernest R. D'Amours, Atty. Gen., and McLane, Davis, Carleton & Graf, of Manchester, for the State.
Robert E. Earley, of Nashua, for trustee in bankruptcy.
Hughes & Burns, of Dover, and Conrad Danais, of Manchester, for other defendants.
The first reason advanced for the granting of the demurrer is that sufficient facts are not alleged to make out a cause of action. Section 8 of chapter 294 of the Laws of 1947 is as follows: The bill alleges that most of the labor and materials were furnished by the defendants in violation of these provisions for competitive bids.
‘The requirement of competitive bidding in the letting of municipal contracts is uniformly construed as mandatory and jurisdictional and nonobservance will render the contract void and unenforcible.’ 3 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, 2d Ed.Rev., 1171. This same principle that failure to comply with a requirement for competitive bidding will render contracts void applies also to a state official. ‘He [a public official] must comply with the requirement of law in respect of the manner in which, and the conditions upon which, contracts may be entered into.’ 43 Am.Jur. 100.
The reason for the strict enforcement of the competitive bidding provisions has been stated in Miller v. McKinnon, 20 Cal.2d 83, 88, 124 P.2d 34, 37, 140 A.L.R. 570. ‘The competitive bidding...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. George C. Stafford & Sons, Inc.
...if its officers acted without authority. Ham v. Maine-New Hampshire Interstate Bridge Authority, 92 N.H. 268, 30 A.2d 1; State v. Cote, 95 N.H. 428, 65 A.2d 280. 'It has been expressly decided that a state is not estopped by the unauthorized acts of its officers.' Smith v. Epping, 69 N.H. 5......
-
Gerard Const. Co., Inc. v. City of Manchester
...are in force, however, strict compliance with the municipal scheme is required; otherwise the contract award is void. See State v. Cote, 95 N.H. 428, 65 A.2d 280 (1949); Platt Elec. Sup., Inc. v. City of Seattle, 16 Wash.App. 265, 555 P.2d 421 (1976); 10 E. McQuillin, supra at § The defenda......
-
Francoeur v. State
...In our opinion no such broad authority can be implied. State v. George C. Stafford Co., 99 N.H. 92, 98 105 A.2d 569. See State v. Cote, 95 N.H. 428, 65 A.2d 280. While under federal law, contract provisions for the determination of disputed claims by an executive officer of the contracting ......
-
Institute for Trend Research v. Griffin
... ... KENISON, Chief Justice ... One of today's thorny problems is whether a government or a state should be subject to equitable estoppel when its tax officials seek to collect past taxes based on reversals of rulings that no taxes are due from ... Maine-New Hampshire Interstate Bridge Authority, 92 N.H. 268, 30 A.2d 1; Smith v. Epping, 69 N.H. 558, 560, 45 A. 415; State v. Cote, 95 N.H. 428, 65 A.2d 280. Recent cases have adhered to this rule with one minor qualification. Where the equities weigh heavily in favor of the ... ...