Woodruff v. Berry
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Pulaski Chancery Court. Hon. D. "W. Carroll, Chancellor. No notice of the letting anew was required by the act. The subsequent letting was merely a continuation of the proceedings under the advertisement in the first instance. Thirty days notice, after the rejection of the first bids, could not have been given six months before the expiration of the time for which the contract already existing was let, &c. The board did give 10 days notice.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Pulaski Chancery Court. Hon. D. "W. Carroll, Chancellor. No notice of the letting anew was required by the act. The subsequent letting was merely a continuation of the proceedings under the advertisement in the first instance. Thirty days notice, after the rejection of the first bids, could not have been given six months before the expiration of the time for which the contract already existing was let, &c. The board did give 10 days notice. “This was not required by law, but evinces a commendable disposition to give publicity to the” letting. Acts 1874-5, p. 44, sec. 4, and p. 46,…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
The Board of’ Commissioners to superintend the letting of public contracts, ■ consisting of tbe Governor, Auditor and Treasurer, advertised for thirty days, that they would down to a certain time, receive sealed proposals for tbe public printing during tbe years 1883 and 1884. Tbe Union Printing Company, tbe firm of Smifchee and Newman, tbe firm of Mitchell & Bettis, and George Woodruff, submitted separate bids for said printing. Tbe bids were all rejected, tbe Board being apparently unable to determine who was tbe lowest bidder. This was on tbe 30th of June, 1882. They then gave notice for…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Whiteside v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Hawkins v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Hart v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- United States v. VanzandtSupreme Court of the United States · 1826
- Atcheson v. . MallonNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- United States v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1898
- Gibbs v. Consolidated Gas Co. of BaltimoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Ellison v. OliverSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1921
- Carter v. Bradley County Road Improvement Districts 1 & 2Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1923
- Wood v. StewartSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.