Worthington v. City of Boston
Decision Date | 11 January 1890 |
Citation | 41 F. 23 |
Parties | WORTHINGTON et al. v. CITY OF BOSTON. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
This is an action to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract, dated May 19, 1885. By this contract the plaintiffs were to furnish two high-service pumping-engines for the city of Boston for the sum of $106,575. The city of Boston refused to receive the engines on the ground that the Boston water board, through whom the contract was made, had no authority to make any contract involving more than $10,000 without first advertising for proposals, which was not done in this case. It is admitted that the damages sustained by the plaintiffs, if the defendant is liable on the contract, are $35,000. The case can be better understood by referring to some portions of the agreed statement of facts.
The city of Boston was, previous to 1875, and ever since has been, authorized to take water from Lake Cochituate, (called also, 'Long Pond,') Sudbury river, and Mystic lake build and maintain aqueducts, dams, reservoirs, lay pipes establish hydrants, and supply its inhabitants with water, in such manner, and by such agents, officers, and servants, as the city council shall from time to time ordain, appoint, and direct, and previous to the year 1875 had established the Cochituate water board and the Mystic water board to exercise these powers, subject to the ordinances and orders of the city. Chapter 80 of the Statutes of Massachusetts for the Year 1875, so far as it is material in this case, is as follows:
The city council of said city, with the approval of the mayor, on the 22d day of March, 1876, passed an ordinance, which continued in force until after the time of making the contract declared on, the parts of which material to this case are as follows:
The Cochituate water department comprises that part of the city waterworks which is employed in supplying the city with water from Lake Cochituate and Sudbury river to Chestnut Hill reservoir, the aqueducts from said sources to, and the pipes supplied from, the reservoir, and the pumps, machinery, etc., appurtenant thereto, and for several years prior to 1884 the matter of extending the high-service works of the Cochituate department was before the city council. In 1881, the Boston water board submitted to the city council an estimate of the cost of such extension, amounting to $743,600. On November 17, 1884, the board submitted to the city council another estimate of the cost of such extension, amounting to $765,600. On December 23, 1884, the following order, duly passed by the city council, was approved by the mayor:
'Ordered, that the city treasurer be authorized to borrow, under the direction of the committee on finance, and at such a rate...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Andrews v. Board of Commissioners of Ada County
...correct in its conclusion that there were no competitive bids under the authority of Ertle v. Leary, 114 Cal. 238, 46 P. 1; Worthington v. City of Boston, 41 F. 23; v. Mayor of N. Y., 20 N.Y. 512; Knecland v. Furlong, 20 Wis. 438; Fones Bros. v. Erb, 54 Ark. 645, 17 S.W. 7, 13 L. R. A. 355.......
-
Drainage Commission of New Orleans v. National Contracting Co.
...under the contract be recovered upon any implied liability.' See Judge Colt in Worthington v. City of Boston (C.C.) 41 F. 23, especially at page 27, and cases there In the Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law (2d Ed.) vol. 20, p. 1165, verbis 'Municipal Corporations,' it is said: 'The general rule is th......