State ex rel. Coal & Coke Co. v. Board, of Education

Ohio Circuit Courts

State ex rel. Coal & Coke Co. v. Board, of Education

12 Ohio Cir. Dec. 735

DecidedJuly 1, 1895

StatusPublished

This text of 12 Ohio Cir. Dec. 735 (State ex rel. Coal & Coke Co. v. Board, of Education) 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

State ex rel. Coal & Coke Co. v. Board, of Education, 12 Ohio Cir. Dec. 735 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

Smith, J.

Without expressing any opinion now, on the question whether the board ot education was required to advertise for bids tor the 5,000 tons of coal, and to further proceed in regard thereto, under the provisions of Sec. 3988, Rev. Stat., or whether a contract as proposed with Mr. Black, under his bid, would be legal, we hold that an alternative writ of mandamus should not be allowed in this case, for the reason that, by the advertisement made for bids, the right was reserved to the board “to reject any and all bids,” and that in fact it did reject the bid ot the relator, and he has no right to the contract. If an advertisement was necessary, the statute gives the board such right. If it is not required, it had the right to make such stipulations as it chose. In ■ this, the case differs from those decided in Beaver v. Trustees, 19 Ohio St., 97, and American Clock Co. v. Licking Co., 31 Ohio St., 415, in which the statutes under which the proceedings was had, required the contract to be made with the lowest bidder.

Writ refused.

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

Smith, J.

Without expressing any opinion now, on the question whether the board ot education was required to advertise for bids tor the 5,000 tons of coal, and to further proceed in regard thereto, under the provisions of Sec. 3988, Rev. Stat., or whether a contract as proposed with Mr. Black, under his bid, would be legal, we hold that an alternative writ of mandamus should not be allowed in this case, for the reason that, by the advertisement made for bids, the right was reserved to the board “to reject any and all bids,” and that in fact it did reject the bid ot the relator, and he has no right to the contract. If an advertisement was necessary, the statute gives the board such right. If it is not required, it had the right to make such stipulations as it chose. In ■ this, the case differs from those decided in Beaver v. Trustees, 19 Ohio St., 97, and American Clock Co. v. Licking Co., 31 Ohio St., 415, in which the statutes under which the proceedings was had, required the contract to be made with the lowest bidder.

Writ refused.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 Ohio Cir. Dec. 735, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-coal-coke-co-v-board-of-education-ohiocirct-1895.