Travis v. Bor. Of Highlands

• Decision Date: 29 September 1947
• Citation: 136 N.J.L. 199,55 A.2d 109
• Parties: TRAVIS et al. v. BOROUGH OF HIGHLANDS et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

136 N.J.L. 199

55 A.2d 109

TRAVIS et al.

v.BOROUGH OF HIGHLANDS et al.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Sept. 29, 1947.

Proceeding by A. Raymond Travis, Jr., trading as American Drilling Company, and James Kinlin and Grace Raymond, against the Borough of Highlands and Layne-New York Corporation, Inc., on rule to show cause why writ of certiorari should not be granted to review an award by the Borough of Highlands of a contract for the construction of a water plant.

Rule to show cause discharged and issuance of the writ denied.

Ward Kremer, of Asbury Park, for prosecutors.

Roberts, Pillsbury, Carton & Sorenson, by John Pillsbury, all of Atlantic Highlands, for defendant Borough of Highlands.

Parsons, Labrecque, Canzona & Combs, by Theodore D. Parsons, all of Red Bank, for defendant Layne-New York Corporation, Inc.

BURLING, Justice.

In this matter a rule to show cause was allowed why a writ of certiorari should not issue to review an award by the Borough of Highlands, a municipal corporation in Monmouth County, of a contract for the construction of a water plant. On April 1, 1947, the Mayor and Council of the Borough adopted a resolution awarding a contract to the defendant, Layne-New York Corporation, Inc., on a bid of $69,200. One of the prosecutors, A. Raymond Travis, Jr., trading as the American Drilling Company, had submitted a bid of $58,347, which was $10,853 lower than the LayneNew York bid. However, the Travis bid required the installation of an additional sedimentation tank at an additional cost of $3000. If this cost is added to the Travis Bid, it would have been $61,347.

The municipal action is attacked by the unsuccessful bidder, Travis, and by the remaining prosecutors who are citizens and taxpayers. Depositions have been taken pursuant to the terms of the rule to show cause. Oral argument was made and extensive briefs have been submitted. The letting is attacked on the following grounds:

1. That the advertisement inviting bids was not published in accordance with the statute (R.S. 40:50-1 and 4, N.J.S.A.).

2. That the Borough failed to secure the approval of its plans and specifications by the State Board of Health, which was a violation of the statute (R.S. 58:11-3, N.J.S.A.).

3. That under the statute (R.S. 40:50-1, N.J.S.A.) it was the duty of the governing body to award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder.

4. That the municipal governing body was guilty of bad faith in the award of the contract to the Layne-New York Corporation, Inc. The specifications were so framed as to limit the binding to one bidder.

As far as Travis is concerned, the crux of the controversy is his persistent attempt to usurp the municipal governing body's function. The gist of his complaint is that the judgment of the elected representatives of the people was bad in adopting a closed system for purification of the water instead of the open method which includes aeration. If in the exercise of this discretion, their judgment was bad, they are answerable to those whom they govern. The evidence shows the governing body arrived at its decision after an exploration of the merits of the two systems under the guidance of their engineer. Over six hundred pages of testimony were taken upon this rule. An analysis of this voluminous testimony reveals there are points in favor of each system.

In the absence of a clear showing of bad faith, the Court will not substitute its judgment on an administrative matter concerning the affairs of municipal government clearly within its province. Kingston Bituminous Products Co. v. Long Branch, Sup., 1940, 124 N.J.L. 472, at p. 475, 12 A.2d 237.

He has no standing because as a bidder he did not comply with the specifications which called for a closed system, but rather in his submission and offer stated ‘I again offer the atmospheric type of aeration by means of coke trays' contrary to the invitation.

As far as the remaining prosecutors James Kinlin and Grace Raymond are concerned, as taxpayers their status is different ( McCarty v. Boulevard Commissioners of Hudson County, 1917, 91 N.J.L. 137 at 143 106 A. 219 (Sup.)), and the subject will be required to be pursued further.

Was the discretion vested in the governing body abused by rigging the specifications for a closed system so as to permit only the defendant, Layne-New York Corporation, to bid? This does not appear to be so.

The principal objection was addressed to the type of strainer, tank size, compressor, filter media and screen, as described in the specifications as fitting only a product of the Layne-New...