TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Boyle v. Grant

Boyle v. Grant, Mayor

Boyle v. Grant, 12 N.Y.S. 801 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1890)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Supreme Court · State Trial Courts
Decided
December 31, 1890
Judges
Bartlett
Citations
12 N.Y.S. 80136 N.Y. St. Rep. 20758 Hun 6111890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2673
Headnotes
City Contracts—Estimates—Parties Interested. An ordinance of the city of New York, founded on section 64 of the consolidation act, provides that all estimates for contracts for doing work or furnishing supplies for the city of New York shall state whether the party making such estimate is the only person interested therein; and that, if any other person have any interest in said estimate or contract, the same shall be stated therein. An estimate made by the United States Illuminating Company for lighting certain of the streets of the city of New York literally complied with the above requirement, in stating that no such interest existed in any party other than itself. It appeared, however, upon the hearing that an agreement existed between said company and the Safety Electric Light & Power Company, whereby the latter corporation had agreed to pay the interest on the bonded indebtedness of the former, and a certain percentage of dividend on its stock, in return for which the former was to pay over to the latter company all of its earnings over and above the expenses of the business, the interest on its bonds, and the amount of its general indebtedness. Held, that the ordinance referred to above was designed to compel the disclosure on the part of bidders of such relations with other parties as those shown to exist between the United States Illuminating Company and the Safety Electric Light & Power Company, but there being nothing to show that such statement was made to deceive or mislead the city autliorities, who were aware of the relations between said companies before said bid was accepted, no sufficient ground appeared for any judicial interference with the action of the city authorities in entering into the proposed contract.
Summary
Appeal from special term, New York county. Suit by Charles Boyle and Peter Butterly, tax-payers, against Hugh J. Grant, as mayor of the city of New York, Theodore W. Myers, as comptroller of the city of New York, and Thomas P. Gilroy, as commissioner of public works of the city of New York, to restrain the execution of an electric light contract, under chapter 531 of the Laws of 1881, as amended by chapter 673 of the Laws of 1887. Appeal by plaintiffs from an order denying a motion for the injunction. The opinion of the court below is as follows:

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Bartlett

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Bartlett, J.

This action was instituted by the plaintiffs as tax-payers to prevent what they alleged to be an illegal official act on the part of the defend-: ants in executing a contract witli the United States Illuminating Company for the lighting of certain streets in the city of Hew York. The reasons which were given by the learned judge at chambers for denying the application for an injunction are so fully stated and so satisfactory in all respects but one that it is only necessary to discuss the single point in which we differ from his view of the law applicable to the case, and this'difference does not affect the correctness of the result which he reached. Section 64 of the Hew York city consolidation act of 1882 provides that contracts for supplies for the municipal corporation, in cases involving the expenditure of more than $1,000, shall be made under such regulations as shall be established by ordinance of the common council. A corporation ordinance prescribes that all estimates for contracts for doing work or furnishing supplies for the city of Hew York shall state, among other things, whether the party, person,- or corporation making said estimate is the only person interested therein; and that if any other person or corporation have any interest in said estimate, or the contract proposed to be taken thereby, the same shall be so stated. In the estimate or bid of the United States Illuminating Company it was stated that such bidder was the only person or corporation interested therein, and that no other person or corporation had any interest in the estimate or in the contract proposed to be taken. The estimate, therefore, literally complied with the requirement of the ordinance. But the plaintiffs allege that the statement was untrue, and showed upon the hearing that an agreement existed between the United States Illuminating Company and the Safety Electric Light & Power Company, whereby the latter corporation had agreed to pay the interest on the bonded indebtedness of the former and a certain percentage of dividend on its stock, in return for which the United States Hluminating Company was to pay over to the Safety Electric Light & Power Company all its earnings over and above the expenses of the business, the interest on its bonds, and the amount of its guarantied dividends. The court below held that this arrangement did not make the Safety Electric Light & Power Company interested in the bid of the United States Illuminating Company in the contract sought thereunder, “any more than the stockholders of the corporation would have such an interest if the net profits of the business were to be paid to them.” Weare not prepared to accept this view. On the contrary, we are strongly inclined to the opinion that the ordinance under consideration was designed to compel the disclosure on the part of the bidders of just such relations with other parties as those which were shown to exist in this case between the United States Illuminating Company and the Safety Electric Light & Power Company. But there is nothing to show that the statement in the bid to the effect that no one else was interested in the estimate or contract was made with any intent to deceive or mislead the city authorities. They became fully aware of the exact interest, if it was an interest, of the Safety Electric Light & Power Company in the contract before the bid was accepted. There is not the slightest basis shown in the papers which were before the court for any supposition that the *804 proposed contract was not in all respects beneficial to the. city, or that the defendants, in accepting the bid, had not acted in the best interests of the taxpayers ; and hence the mere fact that a statement in thebid might be regarded as untrue upon a particular construction of a city ordinance—while under another interpretation it was entirely true—furnished no sufficient ground for any judicial interference with the action of the defendants in entering into the proposed contract. The order below was right, and should be affirmed, with costs and disbursements. Allconcur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1904: 11928: 119042026peak 1904 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. McCord v. Lauterbach91 A.D. 315 (1904)
  2. Warnock & Zahrndt, Inc. v. Wray132 Misc. 882 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1928)

Most recent

  1. Warnock & Zahrndt, Inc. v. Wray132 Misc. 882 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1928)
  2. McCord v. Lauterbach91 A.D. 315 (1904)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list