Woodruff v. Welton

Decision Date06 January 1904
Docket Number13,287
Citation97 N.W. 1037,70 Neb. 665
PartiesLORENZO WOODRUFF v. GEORGE W. WELTON
CourtNebraska Supreme Court

ERROR to the district court for Lancaster county: EDWARD P. HOLMES JUDGE. Reversed. Decree for plaintiff.

REVERSED: DECREE FOR PLAINTIFF.

John M Stewart and Thomas G. Munger, for plaintiff in error.

James L. Caldwell, Frank M. Hall and C. C. Marlay, contra.

AMES C. HASTINGS and OLDHAM, CC., concur.

OPINION

AMES, C.

Sections 149, 150 and 151, article I, chapter 18, Compiled Statutes (Annotated Statutes, 4498-4500), are the following:

"Sec. 149. In all counties where the cost of furnishing the officers with books, blanks and stationery shall exceed the sum of $ 200 per year, the supplies for such purposes shall be let in separate contracts to the lowest competent bidder, who shall give bond for the faithful performance of his contract with at least two good and sufficient sureties, residents of the state. The bond required by this section shall be approved by the county board, and the sureties therein shall justify in the same manner as sureties on official bonds.

"Sec. 150. It shall be the duty of the county clerk on or before the first day of December, annually, to prepare separate estimates of the books, and blanks, and stationery required for the use of the county officers during the coming year, and which by law are not required to be furnished by the state, and during the first week in December he shall publish a brief advertisement in one newspaper published in his county, stating the probable gross number of each item of books, blanks and stationery required by such county during the year following the first day of January next ensuing, and inviting bids therefor, which bids shall be filed with said clerk on or before the said first day of January.

"Sec. 151. The county board shall, at their first meeting in January in each year, open said bids, and award the contract for the furnishing of all such books, blanks and stationery as may be required by county officers, to the lowest bidder competent under the provisions of this subdivision, and who complies with all its provisions; Provided, That the county board may reject any or all bids."

In the year 1902 the county clerk of Lancaster county made and filed in his office an estimate of the books, blanks and stationery required for the use of the county officers during the then coming year. Whether the classifications in this estimate were such as to be in compliance with the law is disputed, but in our opinion the question is not material in this case. The only advertisement for bids for the furnishing of the supplies mentioned, which was published by the clerk in that year, was the following:

"On or before January 1, 1903, I will receive sealed bids for the furnishing of supplies the county of Lancaster may use during the ensuing year, consisting of books, blanks and stationery, to be furnished as per specification on file in my office."

In the light of the decisions of this court in State v. York County, 13 Neb. 57, 12 N.W. 816, and State v. Saline County, 19 Neb. 253, it can not be contended for a moment that this procedure was not entirely void. Notwithstanding this fact, the State Journal Company and the Woodruff-Collins Printing Company both presented bids for the furnishing of the supplies mentioned in the estimate, and a contract therefor was entered into, or attempted so to be, between the county board and the Journal company. The plaintiff, who is a resident citizen and taxpayer of the county, as well as a member of the Woodruff-Collins Printing Company, begun this action against the members of the county board and the State...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Rath v. City of Sutton
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • 23 Enero 2004
    ...is the main impetus behind the relaxation of standing requirements in this area. See, Niklaus, supra; Rein, supra; Woodruff v. Welton, 70 Neb. 665, 97 N.W. 1037 (1904). It is not clear, however, what a resident taxpayer alleging the illegal expenditure of public funds needs to show in order......
  • Aiken v. Armistead
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 24 Junio 1938
    ... ... 1170; Gaston v. State Highway Department, 134 S.C ... 402, 132 S.E. 680; Donaldson v. Police Jury, 161 La ... 471, 109 So. 34; Woodruff v. Welton, 70 Neb. 665, 97 ... N.W. 1037; Weatherer v. Herron, 25 S.D. 208, 126 ... N.W. 244; Terrell v. Middleton, Tex.Civ.App., 187 ... ...
  • State ex rel City of Fargo v. Mitchell
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • 23 Diciembre 1912
    ...Throop, Pub. Off. § 816; State ex rel. Graber v. Matley, 17 Neb. 564, 24 N.W. 200; Winn v. Shaw, 87 Cal. 636, 25 P. 968; Woodruff v. Welton, 70 Neb. 665, 97 N.W. 1037; Colorado Paving Co. v. Murphy, 37 L.R.A. 630, 23 C. C. A. 631, 49 U. S. App. 17, 78 F. 28; Crampton v. Zabriskie, 101 U.S. ......
  • Straughan v. City of Coeur D'Alene
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 21 Diciembre 1932
    ...and supported by the following authorities: Doan v. Board of Commissioners of Logan County, 3 Idaho 38, 26 P. 167; Woodruff v. Welton, 70 Neb. 665, 97 N.W. 1037; Fischer v. Marsh, 113 Neb. 153, 202 N.W. Neumann v. Knox, 115 Neb. 679, 214 N.W. 290; Harris v. City of Philadelphia, 299 Pa. 473......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT