United States International Contracting Co v. Lamont
Decision Date | 10 December 1894 |
Docket Number | No. 689,689 |
Citation | 15 S.Ct. 97,39 L.Ed. 160,155 U.S. 303 |
Parties | UNITED STATES ex rel. INTERNATIONAL CONTRACTING CO. v. LAMONT, Secretary of the Department of War |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
In pursuance of an act of congress making an appropriation for that purpose, an advertisement appeared August 6, 1892, inviting proposals for doing certain work in Gowanus Bay, New York. The work was divided into three parts, as follows: First, for Bay Ridge Channel; second, for Red Hook Channel; and, third, for Gowanus Creek Channel. The advertisement, moreover, stated the sums of money which were available for the work on each separate channel, and it was announced that the work must be commenced on October 1, 1892, and be completed on or before December 31, 1893. In answer to the advertisement, the relator bid upon the work. His proposition was to do it all at a uniform rate of 19.7 of a cent per cubic yard, 'scow measurement,' and with two dredge boats, one of which would commence work within ninety days from the awarding of the contract, and the other within nine months thereafter. He also undertook to complete the entire work on or before June 1, 1894. In the event of an epidemic prevailing in the locality, he reserved the right to cease work until he should think it prudent to resume. The relator's bid was the lowest, and, on September 22d, Lieut. Col. Gillespie, of the engineer corps, who had issued the advertisement as the engineer and officer in charge of the work, and at whose office the bids had been opened, addressed the relator the following letter:
'New York, N. Y., September 22, 1892.
'Mr. Joseph Edwards, President of the International Contracting Co., 16 Exchange Place, N. Y. City.
'Sir: The proposal of the International Contracting Co., opened in this office September 14, 1892, for dredging channels in Gowanus Bay, N. Y., 19.7 cents per cubic yard, has been accepted by the chief of engineers, U. S. army.
'After the contract for the work has been prepared, you will be notified to call at this office to sign it.
'The regulations require that any instrument executed by an incorporated company shall be under its corporate seal, and evidence should be furnished, also under the corporate seal, as to the official character of the person by whom it is executed, and that he is duly authorized to execute the same on behalf of the corporation.
'Please furnish this office with the names and addresses of your proposed sureties, each to justify in the sum of $45,000.
'A memorandum is inclosed, containing instructions for the preparation of contractors' bonds. The execution of the necessary bond, however, will be deferred until the articles of agreement have been completed in every respect.
'Lt. Col. of Engineers.'
On September 23d the secretary of war called on the chief of engineers for the papers relating to the matter, and they were submitted to him. On the following day the chief of engineers sent this telegram to Col. Gillespie:
'Washington, D. C., Sept. 24, 1892.
'To Colonel G. L. Gillespie, Engineer, Army Buildings, Whitehall Street, New York, N. Y.:
'Turtle, Engineers.'
On October 7th the acting secretary of war addressed the following letter to the relator:
'October 7, 1892.
'Gentlemen: The matter of the contract for dredging in Gowanus Bay is not yet settled, and the action of the department upon the bids received has not yet been determined upon. It is respectfully suggested that, if you desire to be heard upon the subject, an opportunity is offered. Any representation you desire to make, either by writing or orally, by attorney or by any officer of your company, will be respectfully received and considered. It is hoped that you will be able to do this by Tuesday—certainly not later than Wednesday—of next week.
'Acting Secretary of War.
'The International Dredging Company, Post Building, 12 to 28 Exchange Place, New York City.'
The secretary of war acted upon the papers after hearing the relator, who claimed that his bid was final and could not be reconsidered, and decided that he had the power to refuse to consummate the contract upon the following grounds:
Accordingly, he ordered the work to be readvertised. The new advertisement appeared on October 26, 1892. It called for proposals which differed from those contemplated by the first advertisement in several important particulars: successor, Mr. Lamont, and demanded that he should sign the contract awarding the relator the work under the first specifications. This demand the secretary refused to comply with, in the following communication:
'War Department,
'Washington, D. C., November 14, 1893.
'Gentlemen: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of November 4, 1893, in which, on behalf of the International Contracting Company, you request me, 'as the secretary of the department of war for the time being, to execute and deliver to that company a contract conforming in all respects to the proposal filed by said company with Lieutenant Colonel Gillespie on the 19th day of Septem- ber, 1892, and the acceptance thereof by the secretary of war through the acting chief of engineers.'
'Secretary of War.'
Upon this refusal, the relator commenced proceedings by a mandamus against Secretary Lamont in the supreme court of the District of Columbia, to compel him to execute and deliver to the relator the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Clackamas County, Ore. v. McKay
...L.Ed. 295 (involving construction of a statute, which required judgment and discretion); United States ex rel. International Contracting Co. v. Lamont, 1894, 155 U.S. 303, 15 S.Ct. 97, 39 L.Ed. 160 (to compel signing of a contract); United States ex rel. Redfield v. Windom, 1891, 137 U.S. 6......
-
Frankel v. Woodrough
...in what its decision shall be or (where such discretion exists) in whether it shall move to a decision. United States v. Lamont, 155 U. S. 303, 308, 15 S. Ct. 97, 39 L. Ed. 160. Moreover, as stated in the Lamont Case at page 308 (15 S. Ct. "The duty to be enforced by mandamus must not only ......
-
City of Grosse Pointe Park v. MUNICIPAL LIABILITY AN PROPERTY POOL
...and that they had the intention which its terms manifest.'" [citation omitted]); see also United States ex rel Int'l Contracting Co. v. Lamont, 155 U.S. 303, 310, 15 S.Ct. 97, 39 L.Ed. 160 (1894); 17A Am. Jur. 2d, Contracts, § 348, p. 336 ("[T]he parties are presumed to have intended what t......
-
Wood v. State ex rel. Gillespie
... ... made. In United States v. Lamont, 155 U.S. 303, 15 ... S.Ct. 97, 98, 39 ... ...