State v. Inhabitants of City of Trenton
| Decision Date | 20 September 1897 |
| Citation | 38 A. 636,60 N.J.L. 402 |
| Parties | STATE (McGOVERN, Prosecutor) v. INHABITANTS OF CITY OF TRENTON. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Certiorari by William F. McGovern to review a paving contract made by the inhabitants of city of Trenton.
Argued February term, 1897, before DEPUE, MAGIE, and GUMMERE, JJ.
Chauncey H. Beasley, for prosecutor.
George W. Macpherson and John Rellstab, for defendant.
The writ in this case brings up for review a contract for the paving of Prospect street, in the city of Trenton, with vitrified brick, awarded by the municipal authorities to one Dennis Roe. It is insisted on behalf of the prosecutor that the contract is void, because it was not awarded to the lowest bidder, as required by the 107th section of the city charter; and the right of the prosecutor to challenge the action of the city is based upon the claim that he himself was the lowest bidder, and that, by the award of the contract to another than himself, he was specially and injuriously affected. Assuming his claim that he was entitled to have the contract awarded to him to be well founded, it cannot be denied that he was specially and injuriously affected by the action complained of, and is entitled to question its validity by certiorari. Jersey City v. Traphagen, 53 N. J. Law, 434, 22 Atl. 190; Tallon v. Hoboken, (N. J. Err. & App.; June term, 1897) 37 Atl. 895. Assuming, then, that the prosecutor was the lowest bidder, was the action of the municipality in awarding the contract to Roe in violation of the charter provision, and therefore void? The 107th section of the charter provides "that all contracts for doing work," etc., "shall at all times be given to the lowest bidder or bidders who shall give satisfactory proof of his or their ability to furnish the requisite materials and perform the work properly." Pamph. Laws 1874, p. 385. This provision of the charter has received consideration at the hands of this court at the present term in the case of Wilson v. Inhabitants of Trenton, 38 Atl. 635, and it was there held that, by the requirement of this section, a person, in order to be entitled to the award of a contract with the city, must not only underbid his competitors, and be in fact able to perform the contract, but that he must furnish to the municipality satisfactory proof of such ability. In the present case the common council of the city were not satisfied, from the proofs furnished by the prosecutor, taken in connection with other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Richardson Engineering Co. v. Rutgers, State University
...677 (Sup.Ct.1928); Critchfield v. Jersey City, supra; Atlantic Gas & Water Co. v. Atlantic City, supra; McGovern v. Inhabitants of City of Trenton, 60 N.J.L. 402, 38 A. 636 (Sup.Ct.1897); Bartley, Incorporated v. Town of Westlake, 237 La. 413, 111 So.2d 328 (1959). See also Scatuorchio v. J......
-
M. A. Stephen Const. Co., Inc. v. Borough of Rumson
...of his bid or the letting of the contract to another bidder, and to compel the award of the contract to him, McGovern v. Trenton, 60 N.J.L. 402, 38 A. 636 (Sup.Ct.1897). But such standing was granted simply and solely in order that the public interest might be served by compelling the lax o......
-
Waszen v. Atl. City
...to challenge the award of the contract to a rival bidder or to attack allegedly illegal specifications. McGovern v. Inhabitants of City of Trenton, Sup.1897, 60 N.J.L. 402, 38 A. 636; International Motor Co. v. Mayor, and Cemmon Council of City of Plainfield, Sup.1921, 96 N.J.L. 364, 115 A.......
-
Lieberman v. Township Committee of Neptune Tp.
...The rule is well established that an unsuccessful bidder has no standing to attack a sale in which he took part. McGovern v. Trenton, 60 N.J.L. 402, 38 A. 636 (Sup.Ct.1897); Waszen v. City of Atlantic City, 1 N.J. 272, 276, 63 A.2d 255 (1949); Camden Plaza Parking v. City of Camden, 16 N.J.......