Tunny v. City of Hastings
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Dakota county to recover $500 which plaintiff had deposited with defendant, the same to be returned to this plaintiff “upon demand.”
Read the full summary
Action in the district court for Dakota county to recover $500 which plaintiff had deposited with defendant, the same to be returned to this plaintiff “upon demand.” The answer alleged that plaintiff made the deposit mentioned in the complaint in connection with his bid or proposal for constructing certain sewers and waterworks ; that his bid was accepted and the contract awarded to him; that he had neglected to execute the contract and furnish, the required bond, by reason whereof the deposit became forfeited to> defendant, as declared by its city council. The reply alleged that defendant…
1Opinion of the CourtHallam, J.
The city of Hastings was desirous of constructing a system of sewers and water works on certain streets. The city accordingly prepared specifications and advertised for bids. Chapter 312, p. 544, Laws 1903, provides that in such cases no bid shall be considered unless accompanied by a cash deposit or certified check for at least 15 per cent of the amount bid. The advertisement in this case stated that no bids would be considered unless accompanied by a cash deposit or certified check for at least $500. Plaintiff Tunny submitted a bid to do the work for $37,694, and accompanied his bid with a…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Diamond v. City of MankatoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1903
- Keeling v. EdwardsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1912
3Cited by12 opinions
- Kutsche v. FordMichigan Supreme Court · 1923
- St. Nicholas Church v. KroppSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
- Rushlight Automatic Sprinkler Co. v. City of PortlandOregon Supreme Court · 1950
- Minnesota Ltd., Inc. v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COM'N OF HIBBINGSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1973
- Houchin v. Braham Investment Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1938
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.