Mayo v. County Commissioners

6 N.E. 757, 141 Mass. 74, 1886 Mass. LEXIS 127
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJanuary 18, 1886
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 6 N.E. 757 (Mayo v. County Commissioners) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mayo v. County Commissioners, 6 N.E. 757, 141 Mass. 74, 1886 Mass. LEXIS 127 (Mass. 1886).

Opinion

By the Court.

We need not consider whether a private person can maintain a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel public officers to perform their duties, or to direct the manner in which they shall perform them. It is enough for the decision of this case, that there has been, on the part of the respondents, no neglect to perform their duty, and no error in the manner in which they have performed it.

County commissioners are not required by law to accept the lowest proposal for public works. The statute provides that all contracts for public works made by them shall, if exceeding $300 in amount, be made in writing, after notice for proposals therefor [75]*75has been published at least three times in some newspaper published in the county, city, or town interested in the work. Pub. Sts. c. 22, § 22. It does not provide that they shall accept the lowest proposal. It is clearly the intention of the Legislature that the county commissioners, after inviting competition by public notice, shall have the authority to make such contract as in their judgment the interests of the county require. In the case at bar, the commissioners fully complied with the statute. If, upon examining the various proposals, they were satisfied that Mayo, the lowest bidder, was an irresponsible person, unfit and incompetent to perform the work proposed, it was their right and duty to reject his proposal, and to make a contract with some other person, such as, in their judgment, was the most advantageous to the county.

Petition dismissed.

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

Related

Demos Bros. General Contractors, Inc. v. City of Springfield
76 N.E.2d 166 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1947)
Slocum v. City of Medford
18 N.E.2d 1013 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1939)
Doyal v. Waldrop
17 P.2d 939 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1932)
Archambault v. Mayor of Lowell
180 N.E. 157 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1932)
Larkin v. County Commissioners
174 N.E. 684 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1931)
State ex rel. Eaves v. Rickards
28 L.R.A. 476 (Montana Supreme Court, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 N.E. 757, 141 Mass. 74, 1886 Mass. LEXIS 127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mayo-v-county-commissioners-mass-1886.