Skip to content

Mayo v. County Commissioners

Amaziah Mayo, Jr. & others v. County Commissioners of Hampden

Mayo v. Cnty. Comm'rs, 6 N.E. 757 (Mass. 1886)

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided: January 18, 1886
Citations: 6 N.E. 757141 Mass. 741886 Mass. LEXIS 127

Cited by 7

Headnotes

Under the Pub. Sts. c. 22, § 22, county commissioners are not required to accept the lowest proposal for the construction of public works, but may make such contract therefor as, in their judgment, will be for the best interests of the county.

Summary

Petition for a writ of mandamus, by certain citizens and tax-payers of Springfield, to compel the county commissioners of Hampden to award a contract for the construction of the jail and house of correction in said county to the first-named petitioner, who, as the petition alleged, was the lowest bidder for said work, and was able and ready to furnish good and sufficient sureties for the faithful performance of the contract. The petition further alleged that the commissioners had awarded the contract to other persons, whose bid was larger than that of the first-named petitioner. Annexed to the petition was a copy of the advertisement for proposals for bids, which stated that the commissioners reserved the right to reject any and all bids. The respondents demurred to the petition. The case was heard, upon the petition and demurrer, by Field, J., who sustained the demurrer, and at the request of the petitioners reported the case, for the consideration of the full court, such decree to be entered as justice might require.

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

Opinion of the Court

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

By the Court.

We need not consider whether a private person can maintain a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel public officers to perform their duties, or to direct the manner in which they shall perform them. It is enough for the decision of this case, that there has been, on the part of the respondents, no neglect to perform their duty, and no error in the manner in which they have performed it.

County commissioners are not required by law to accept the lowest proposal for public works. The statute provides that all contracts for public works made by them shall, if exceeding $300 in amount, be made in writing, after notice for proposals therefor *75 has been published at least three times in some newspaper published in the county, city, or town interested in the work. Pub. Sts. c. 22, § 22. It does not provide that they shall accept the lowest proposal. It is clearly the intention of the Legislature that the county commissioners, after inviting competition by public notice, shall have the authority to make such contract as in their judgment the interests of the county require. In the case at bar, the commissioners fully complied with the statute. If, upon examining the various proposals, they were satisfied that Mayo, the lowest bidder, was an irresponsible person, unfit and incompetent to perform the work proposed, it was their right and duty to reject his proposal, and to make a contract with some other person, such as, in their judgment, was the most advantageous to the county.

Petition dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 7 cases

View all citing references →

State Highest Courts7

Relies on it most ⓘ

Criswell v. Board of Directors of Everett School District No. 2475 P. 984 (Wash. 1904)
Doyal v. Waldrop17 P.2d 939 (N.M. 1932)
State ex rel. Eaves v. Rickards28 L.R.A. 476 (Mont. 1895)
Slocum v. City of Medford18 N.E.2d 1013 (Mass. 1939)
Larkin v. County Commissioners174 N.E. 684 (Mass. 1931)
Archambault v. Mayor of Lowell180 N.E. 157 (Mass. 1932)

Most recent

Demos Bros. General Contractors, Inc. v. City of Springfield76 N.E.2d 166 (Mass. 1947)
Slocum v. City of Medford18 N.E.2d 1013 (Mass. 1939)
Doyal v. Waldrop17 P.2d 939 (N.M. 1932)
Archambault v. Mayor of Lowell180 N.E. 157 (Mass. 1932)
Larkin v. County Commissioners174 N.E. 684 (Mass. 1931)
Criswell v. Board of Directors of Everett School District No. 2475 P. 984 (Wash. 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.