People ex rel. Coughlin v. Gleason — 22 N.Y. St. Rep. 103

Majority

p. 103

The People ex rel. Michael Coughlin, Resp’ts, v. Patrick J. Gleason, Mayor, etc., App’lt.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,

Filed February 11, 1889.)

Headnote

1. Municipal Corporations—Charter of Long Island City—Laws 1871, chap. 461, tit. 11, §29—Regulations as to work done for corporation.

The charter of Long Island City (Laws 1871, chap. 461, tit. 11, § 29) provides that “ all work to be done and all supplies to be furnished for the-corporation - * """ shall be by contract, founded on sealed bids, or on proposals made in compliance with public notice for the full term of ten days, and all such contracts, when given, shall be given to the lowest, responsible bidder giving adequate security.” For the work in question, notice was given. Three of the bids received were lower than the relator’s. The common council voted the contract to him, and the mayor-refused his assent thereto and refused to sign a warrant for the work done. Reid, that the determination as to who is the lowest bidder giving adequate security is a quasi judicial one, and after a determination is reached is not the subject of review in the courts.

p. 104

2. Same—When duty of the mayor to sign warrant nor work done.

The auditing of a hill for work done is one of the duties of the common council, and when it is properly audited it is the duty of the mayor to sign ■ a warrant therefor.

Appeal from an order of the special term granting a peremptory writ of mandamus.

This proceeding was brought to compel the mayor of Long Island City to deliver his warrant to the relator for one month’s compensation for cleaning the streets of the first ward of Long Island City, under a contract which was alleged to be illegal and void. The common council, by resolution, directed a contract'with the relator, whose bid was accepted. The resolutions awarding the contract and -directing payment of the amount allowed were both vetoed by the mayor, and the common council passed the same over the veto.

A. T. Payne, for relator; W. J. Foster, for resp’t.

—That part of the charter of Long Island City which is important in the consideration of the question presented is in these words: “All work to be done and all supplies to be furnished for the corporation inviting an expenditure of more than one hundred dollars shall be by contract founded on sealed bids or on proposals made in compliance with public notice for the full term of ten days, and all such contracts when given shall be given to the lowest responsible bidder giving adequate security.” Chapter 461 of the Laws of 1871, § 29, title 11 of chapter.

For the work in question, due public notice was given, inviting bids for cleaning the streets in the First ward of the city. There were five bids, and the relator was. not the lowest bidder, and three out of the five bids received were lower than his. The common council voted the contract to relator. The mayor refused his assent and the aldermen unanimously voted to give the contract to relator, notwithstanding the non-concurrence of the mayor. The contract was begun and the relator did the work under it for one month.

The contract called for monthly payments. The aider-men voted payment and the mayor refused to sign the warrant. The determination as to who was the lowest responsible bidder giving adequate security is a quasi judicial one, and after a determination is reached it is not the subject of review in the courts. East River Gas-Light Co. v. Donnelly, 93 N. Y., 557 .

The contract was awarded on June 22, 1888, and the resolution was vetoed July 2, 1888, and on July 31, 1888, the resolution was passed over the veto. The charter requires that the vote on the veto shall be at the next regular

p. 105

meeting. The papers did not show any regular meeting before the presentation of the veto and the meeting at which the vote was taken.

The auditing of a bill is one of the duties of the common council. Chapter 461 of the Laws of 1871, title 3, chapter 1, §§ 11 and 12.

No question is made but that the work was done and the bill properly audited.

It is therefore the duty of the mayor to sign the warrant.

The order should therefore be affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

Pratt, J , concurs; Dykman, J., not sitting.