68 N.Y.S. 894 | N.Y. Sup. Ct. | 1900
Prior to January 1, 1900, the fire department of the" city of Syracuse was under the general supervision and control of a board of fire commissioners. Section 185 (L. 1885, ch. 26) of the revised charter, then in force, provided that all purchases, sales or expenses connected with the extension or enlargement of the real property, structures and. apparatus of said department should be under the direction and control of the common council, except as hereinafter provided. Ooncededly, no
On January 1, 1900, the revised charter was superseded by the charter for cities of the second class. The board of fire commissioners was thereby abolished, and the supervision and control of the fire department was given to a commissioner of public safety. Section 120 of this latter act provided substantially that all contracts for the performance of any work, or the supply of any materials for the department of public safety, in cases where the work or material shall exceed in cost fifty dollars, shall be let to the lowest bidder, after public notice, and after the preparation of specifications. On January 21,1900, the plaintiff delivered the hook and ladder truck in question to the city of Syracuse; it was received by the commissioner of public safety; it was tried and accepted by him, and was put into immediate use, and ever since
Under these circumstances the question to be decided is whether the contract in question has been ratified by the city, or whether the city is estopped from disputing its validity. If both these questions are answered in the negative, may the plaintiff recover on the theory of a quantum mendt?
The contract as made was concededly unauthorized. There was no advertisement — no proposals — no competitive bidding within the true sense of the term. Shaw v. City of Trenton, 49 N. J. Law, 339; People ex rel. Ream P. Co. v. Board, 43 N. Y. 227; Mazet v. City, 127 Penn. St. 548; People v. Commissioners, 4 Neb. 150; Kneeland v. Furlong, 20 Wis. 437. This provision, in regard to contracts, is not a merely formal and unimportant matter. It is “ based upon motives of public economy and originated, perhaps, in some degree of mistrust of the officers to whom the duty of making contracts for the public service was committed. If executed according to its intention, it will preclude favoritism and jobbing, and such was the obvious purpose.” Brady v. Mayor, 20 N. Y. 312. Even where injustice would seem to result — even where, as in this case, there is no claim of any improper motive or intent, public policy requires that the statute, in regard to public competition, should be strictly enforced by the court. And, as bearing upon the question of equity between the parties, it should be borne in mind that those contracting with a municipality are aware of such restrictions, upon its powers, as axe imposed by the charter. The council, therefore, could not have made this contract originally. To say that, in such a case, it may ratify such
It does not follow that the plaintiff is entirely without redress, It is clear that it may, at least, recover the possession of the truck. The plaintiff also claims the right to recover an item of six dollars and thirty-five cents for various supplies furnished to the fire department of the city during the year 1899. Without discussing in detail the defense interposed by the defendant as to this claim, I have concluded it is properly chargeable against the city, and should be allowed.
Judgment, therefore, should be directed in favor of the plaintiff against the city of Syracuse for the sum of six dollars and thirty-five cents, but, under the agreement made by the parties, without costs.
Ordered accordingly. |