Woodruff v. Welton
Decision Date | 06 January 1904 |
Docket Number | 13,287 |
Citation | 97 N.W. 1037,70 Neb. 665 |
Parties | LORENZO WOODRUFF v. GEORGE W. WELTON |
Court | Nebraska 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.
Sections 149, 150 and 151, article I, chapter 18, Compiled Statutes (Annotated Statutes, 4498-4500), are the following:
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-
Rath v. City of Sutton
...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
... ... 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
...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
...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......