In the Matter of John G. Leeds
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, affirming an order of Special Term denying motion to reduce an assessment on the lands of petitioner in the city of Brooklyn for the construction of a sewer.
Read the full summary
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, affirming an order of Special Term denying motion to reduce an assessment on the lands of petitioner in the city of Brooklyn for the construction of a sewer. The board of water and sewerage commissioners regularly advertised and let the contract to the lowest bidder for prices amounting to $232,858.45. The successful bidder entered into a contract, and after performing a portion of the work abandoned it. Without further advertisement, and without competition, the board proceeded to complete and did…
1Opinion of the Court
Church, Ch. J.
The question is whether the expense of the sewer was unlawfully increased by any fraud or irregularity. There is no dispute that the original contract was let to the lowest bidder, and in accordance with the terms of the statute. The contractor, after making some progress with the work, abandoned his contract, and the work was let to and completed by another contractor without advertising or competition, but at a considerable additional expense from the amount of the first contract. There is no claim of fraud in the case, but it is claimed that the omission to advertise for…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Woodruff v. BerrySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1882
- City of Paris v. BrayTexas Supreme Court · 1915
- Tufaro Transit Co. v. Board of EducationAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1981
- City of Camden v. WardSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1902
- City of Chicago v. HanreddyAppellate Court of Illinois · 1902
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.