Safford v. McCallin

Citations

• 1 Monag. 596
• 1889 Pa. LEXIS 1251

Syllabus

<p>The department of a%vards of the city of Pittsburgh awarded a contract for two fire engines to the Manchester Locomotive Works at $5,000 for each engine. There were two other bidders, each of whom offered to supply the engines for $4,575 for each engine. On a bill in equity, by a taxpayer, against the individual members of the department of awards, to restrain the department of awards from entering into a contract on behalf of the city with the Manchester Company, it was alleged that the award was exorbitant, unlawful and fraudulent, and that the specifications called for boilers with copper tubes but the award was made for an engine with a flue boiler, which is not so good. The answer denied the allegations of fraud and averred that the department of awards, after due consideration, had decided that, taking all things into consideration, the bid of the Manchester company was the lowest responsible bid, that the engine offered by them was a better engine than the others, that it would cost less for repairs, that it had been in use in Pittsburgh for many years and was better understood by the firemen, and that it was supplied with the Endicott platform spring, not included in the specifications, which was a most important consideration in the purchase of steam engines. The answer further averred that the flue boilers and tubular boilers were substantially the same and equally good. The court below granted a preliminary injunction on the ground that, while the department of awards acted in good faith, their discretion was limited to the responsible character of the bidder, under the Act of May 24,1887. Held, that the injunction should he dissolved.</p>