Addis v. City of Pittsburgh

85 Pa. 379, 1877 Pa. LEXIS 263
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedOctober 31, 1877
DocketNo. 2
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 85 Pa. 379 (Addis v. City of Pittsburgh) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Addis v. City of Pittsburgh, 85 Pa. 379, 1877 Pa. LEXIS 263 (Pa. 1877).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Sharswood

delivered the opinion of the court, November 12th 1877.

We think that the learned judge below was right in his ruling upon the offers of evidence by the plaintiff, and in his charge to the jury.

Under the Acts of Assembly and the ordinances of the city councils given in evidence, contracts for the grading and paving of streets, are to be let after due advertisement to the lowest and best bidder. It is perfectly true that after the contract had been given to the plaintiff, the city had no right to alter it and impose different terms on the contractor as they did by the ordinance changing the grade of Wilkins avenue. The plaintiff would clearly have had the right to rescind the contract, recover for the work he had done, and it may be damages for the breach. The proper course for the eity, undoubtedly was to advertise and relet the work. But the plaintiff preferred to go on with the work under his contract. He relied, it was offered to prove, on the assurance of the city engineer and the street committee that he should be compensated for the extra work. But the city itself, much less any of its subordinate officers, or committee, had no power to make an agreement to pay for such work on the rule of a quantum meruit. We may regret that the plaintiff acted unadvisedly, but to assist him in this hard case would lay the axe at the root of the system which imperatively requires all municipal work of this character to be done by the lowest and best bidder. Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Ezy Parks v. Larson
454 A.2d 928 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1982)
State Ex Rel. Russell County v. Fourth National Bank
117 So. 2d 145 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1959)
Antel v. McDonald School District
71 Pa. D. & C. 216 (Washington County Court of Common Pleas, 1949)
Underwood Corp. v. Chester Municipal Authority
49 Pa. D. & C. 295 (Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, 1942)
Costolo v. Sch. D. of Springhill Twp.
99 Pa. Super. 259 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1930)
Foresman v. Gregg Township
147 A. 64 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1929)
In Re: Appeal of Sykesville Borough
91 Pa. Super. 335 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1927)
Commonwealth Ex Rel. v. Jones
129 A. 635 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1925)
Walz v. Wilson Borough
6 Pa. D. & C. 534 (Northampton County Court of Common Pleas, 1924)
City of Yuma v. English
226 P. 531 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1924)
Waltman v. Albany Township School District
64 Pa. Super. 458 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1916)
Philadelphia Co. v. City of Pittsburgh
97 A. 1083 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1916)
Marshall & Bruce Co. v. City of Nashville
109 Tenn. 495 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1902)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
85 Pa. 379, 1877 Pa. LEXIS 263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/addis-v-city-of-pittsburgh-pa-1877.