Ruby v. Freeholders of Hudson County

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Ruby v. Freeholders of Hudson County

100 A. 157, 90 N.J.L. 335, 1917 N.J. LEXIS 335

DecidedMarch 5, 1917

StatusPublished

This text of 100 A. 157 (Ruby v. Freeholders of Hudson County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ruby v. Freeholders of Hudson County, 100 A. 157, 90 N.J.L. 335, 1917 N.J. LEXIS 335 (N.J. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judgment of the Supreme Court should be affirmed, for tiie reasons given in the opinion of Mr. Justice Trenchard in the first of the above cases in that court.

Appellant Baker makes the additional point, not discussed by the Supreme Court, that the retention of his certified check deposited as a guarantee, when the cheeks of all other competing bidders were returned to them, amounted in law to an acceptance of the Baker bid and bound the county to proceed with the contract. We cannot take this view. The retention of Baker’s check went with the resolution purporting, by a vote of six to three, to award him the contract, and certainly gave that attempt no additional efficacy. The fact that by consent of parties, or misapprehension of the correctness of the legal situation, the check remained with the freeholders, conferred no rights on the bidder except to have the check back.

For affirmance — Tits Chancellor, Chief Justice, Swayze, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kaitsch, White, Heppenhetmer, Williams, Gardner, JJ. 11.

For reversal—1STone.

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

Per Curiam.

The judgment of the Supreme Court should be affirmed, for tiie reasons given in the opinion of Mr. Justice Trenchard in the first of the above cases in that court.

Appellant Baker makes the additional point, not discussed by the Supreme Court, that the retention of his certified check deposited as a guarantee, when the cheeks of all other competing bidders were returned to them, amounted in law to an acceptance of the Baker bid and bound the county to proceed with the contract. We cannot take this view. The retention of Baker’s check went with the resolution purporting, by a vote of six to three, to award him the contract, and certainly gave that attempt no additional efficacy. The fact that by consent of parties, or misapprehension of the correctness of the legal situation, the check remained with the freeholders, conferred no rights on the bidder except to have the check back.

For affirmance — Tits Chancellor, Chief Justice, Swayze, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kaitsch, White, Heppenhetmer, Williams, Gardner, JJ. 11.

For reversal—1STone.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 A. 157, 90 N.J.L. 335, 1917 N.J. LEXIS 335, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruby-v-freeholders-of-hudson-county-nj-1917.