Cincinnati (City) v. Baumer

Ohio Circuit Courts

Cincinnati (City) v. Baumer

22 Ohio C.C. Dec. 727

DecidedJuly 1, 1908

StatusPublished

This text of 22 Ohio C.C. Dec. 727 (Cincinnati (City) v. Baumer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Circuit Courts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cincinnati (City) v. Baumer, 22 Ohio C.C. Dec. 727 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

GIFFEN, J.

The bond m suit is statutory (Cincinnati water works; act, 92 O. L. 606), and in determining its effect reference should be 'had to the statute which authorizes its execution and prescribes its objects. Secrest v. Barbee, 17 Ohio St. 426.

The damages could be easily ascertained in two ways, either by reletting the contract to the next lowest and best bidder, or by readvertising and reletting to the lowest and best bidder. The commissioners of waterworks in the exercise of the discretion conferred by statute, relet the contract to the next lowest and best bidder at a loss of more than twice the amount of the bond, and there is nothing in the record showing ■any abuse of discretion, or that a readvertisement would have-resulted in less loss to the city.

Judgment reversed and judgment for plaintiff in error.

Smith and Swing, JJ., concur.

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

GIFFEN, J.

The bond m suit is statutory (Cincinnati water works; act, 92 O. L. 606), and in determining its effect reference should be 'had to the statute which authorizes its execution and prescribes its objects. Secrest v. Barbee, 17 Ohio St. 426.

The damages could be easily ascertained in two ways, either by reletting the contract to the next lowest and best bidder, or by readvertising and reletting to the lowest and best bidder. The commissioners of waterworks in the exercise of the discretion conferred by statute, relet the contract to the next lowest and best bidder at a loss of more than twice the amount of the bond, and there is nothing in the record showing ■any abuse of discretion, or that a readvertisement would have-resulted in less loss to the city.

Judgment reversed and judgment for plaintiff in error.

Smith and Swing, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 Ohio C.C. Dec. 727, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cincinnati-city-v-baumer-ohiocirct-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack