Stone v. Mayo
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Poinsett Chancery Court; Archer Wheatley, Chancellor; The bid, which was the basis of the final contract, was void under Kirby’s Digest, sections 1452-3, prohibiting the payment in warrants of a larger sum than would be required in money. 44 Ark. 437. The bid and contract are valid, and fix the price at $91,000, and not 70% per cent, of that sum. There was no fraud nor collusion, and the bid was the lowest.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Poinsett Chancery Court; Archer Wheatley, Chancellor; The bid, which was the basis of the final contract, was void under Kirby’s Digest, sections 1452-3, prohibiting the payment in warrants of a larger sum than would be required in money. 44 Ark. 437. The bid and contract are valid, and fix the price at $91,000, and not 70% per cent, of that sum. There was no fraud nor collusion, and the bid was the lowest. The price was fair and reasonable. 103 Ahk. 468. The “70-125 base” was a mere notation indicating the price at which warrants could be sold. 44 Ark. 437 is an entirely…
1Opinion of the Court
WOOD, J.,
(after stating the facts). In Watkins v. Stough, 103 Ark. 468- 471, there was a contract let for the construction of certain bridges to the lowest bidder at public outcry. The facts are very similar to the case at bar. There was testimony tending to show that when the contract was offered at public outcry the county judge made a public announcement that county warrants could be cashed at 50-55 -cents on the dollar. The contract was let for the construction of the bridge at $3.40 per linear foot. The contract was attacked on the ground that the bid for the work was based on…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Watkins v. StoughSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
3Cited by3 opinions
- Franklin County v. Harriman Nat. BankCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1927
- Kleiner v. ParkerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928
- Norman v. BlairSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928