Ach, Commrs. v. State, Ex Rel.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Ach, Commrs. v. State, Ex Rel.

183 N.E. 543, 43 Ohio App. 525, 13 Ohio Law. Abs. 384

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 29, 1932

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 183 N.E. 543 (Ach, Commrs. v. State, Ex Rel.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ach, Commrs. v. State, Ex Rel., 183 N.E. 543, 43 Ohio App. 525, 13 Ohio Law. Abs. 384 (Ohio Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

ROSS, PJ.

This is a proceeding in error from the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County, wherein judgment was rendered in favor of Leo J. Brielmaier, the relator.

Bids were taken by the commissioners of Hamilton County for the erection of a building to be used as a road repair station. The lowest bid contained the following item:

Dollars Cents Prices in figures in this

Structural Steel column

48,000 lbs. per lb. Three quarter. 0.03%

It is contended by the relator that this bid is so indefinite, vague, and ambiguous as to be wholly void. We do not find any difficulty in holding otherwise. If this were a proceeding upon the bid, certainly by all rules of construction the contractor would have been required to perform upon the basis of 3% cents per pound structural steel. The mere fact that the bidder left the words “and a” out of the phrase unquestionably intended, “three and a quarter,” cannot be used by any one to inject ambiguity where none exists. The figures following, “0.03%,” are obvious and consistent. The words are not “three quarters,” but “three quarter.”

Even if the language to the bid needed interpretation, we feel that to such an extent the county commissioners are empowered to construe the meaning of the terms used in the instant case.

There being no dispute as to the facts, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County is reversed, and judgment is entered here for the respondents, the plaintiffs in error here.

CUSHING and LEVINE, JJ, concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ROSS, PJ.

This is a proceeding in error from the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County, wherein judgment was rendered in favor of Leo J. Brielmaier, the relator.

Bids were taken by the commissioners of Hamilton County for the erection of a building to be used as a road repair station. The lowest bid contained the following item:

Dollars Cents Prices in figures in this

Structural Steel column

48,000 lbs. per lb. Three quarter. 0.03%

It is contended by the relator that this bid is so indefinite, vague, and ambiguous as to be wholly void. We do not find any difficulty in holding otherwise. If this were a proceeding upon the bid, certainly by all rules of construction the contractor would have been required to perform upon the basis of 3% cents per pound structural steel. The mere fact that the bidder left the words “and a” out of the phrase unquestionably intended, “three and a quarter,” cannot be used by any one to inject ambiguity where none exists. The figures following, “0.03%,” are obvious and consistent. The words are not “three quarters,” but “three quarter.”

Even if the language to the bid needed interpretation, we feel that to such an extent the county commissioners are empowered to construe the meaning of the terms used in the instant case.

There being no dispute as to the facts, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County is reversed, and judgment is entered here for the respondents, the plaintiffs in error here.

CUSHING and LEVINE, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 N.E. 543, 43 Ohio App. 525, 13 Ohio Law. Abs. 384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ach-commrs-v-state-ex-rel-ohioctapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack