Tuke v. Sundmaker

10 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 417
Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County·Decided August 15, 1910·Published

Opinion

WOODMANSEE, J.

This action was brought by Fred Tuke, a tax-payer, on behalf of the city of Cincinnati, to enjoin the carrying out of a contract entered into by and between the city of Cincinnati, through its proper officers, and the defendant, J. M. Quill, for the laying of a wood block surface upon Eastern avenue in said city.

The petition sets out the different steps that were taken by the public officials of said city under which the contract was finally awarded to said Quill.

The petition contains a number of paragraphs taken from the specifications for the work with reference to wood blocks, the treatment thereof and the oil to be used, and it is alleged that ten bids were made for the work by various contractors, two by the defendant, Quill, one of which was a proposal to do the work for $62,348.50 and the other to do the work for $77,132.50.

[418]*418The petition further alleges that the proposal to do the work for the larger sum was wrongfully accepted by the city and a contract entered into to pay the said Quill the sum of $77,132.50 for making said improvement, which said contract is sought to be enjoined in this suit.

The questions involved in this proceeding are of such moment to the people of Cincinnati as well as to the parties to the suit that the court has been quite willing to give- all matters involved the largest range of investigation so that the result of the trial might be helpful in finding out the proper legal steps to be hereafter taken to secure for our city the best streets and a speedy construction of the work provided for under the contracts let.

Certainly no one could desire that a much needed public improvement should be delayed because a contract has been entered into that suggests a judicial construction before it is performed.

The extensive use of wood blocks for street paving is limited to recent years, although the value of treating wood with oil to preserve it has been known for many decades.

Cincinnati in the last four or five years has payed a number of streets with wood blocks and the investigation in this ease has brought the court’s attention to the extent of this new and growing industry as well as to its marvelous possibilities for the future.

The average man finds it almost beyond comprehension that in eomplance with the Cincinnati specifications and the usual specifications for like work that twenty pounds or more than two gallons of oil in quantity must be injected into every.cubic foot of timber used. This treatment is to destroy all the elements of decomposition that exists in the wood and is to fill all the pores; to make the blocks impervious to water and at the same time make it almost limitless in its capacity to endure both the ravages of time and the ordinary service to which it is put. Experience has suggested changes from time to time in the kind of oil to be used and the manner of treatment.

In this extended hearing the court has been impressed with the fact that this is largely a controversy between manufacturers of and dealers in oils. It may seem on the surface an effort to save money to the property owners along Eastern avenue, but when brought down to its last analysis it is a proceeding to find a [419]*419market for oils other than those required in the contract sought to be enjoined. The defendant Quill can hardly be said to be responsible for the situation in which he finds himself for he must necessarily negotiate with the oil man and as he can not do business with all of them in a single contract he is thereby brought into a controversy by the rivalry and difference of others.

The court’s observation has been that public contractors are not unlike other men. They naturally seek a contract on terms most advantageous to themselves, but the contractor who faithfully performs all the obligations of a contract which he has made with a municipality is entitled to be freed from the unjust criticism that is often directed at all public contractors. The contractor engaged in the paving of a street who willfully gives the community less than that which it has contracted for should be measured by the same standard as the grocer or the coal dealer who uses short weights or the merchant who knowingly sells an adulteration for the real thing.

It is made to appear that for reasons satisfactory to himself the defendant Quill made two bids for the contemplated wood block improvement in question. The specifications required that samples of oil should be furnished with each bid. This requirement -was complied with, a number one grade of oil becoming a part of the highest bid; a number two grade becoming a part of the lowest bid. The number two grade of oil was rejected by the director of public service, and said official stated in open court that the same was rejected upon the report of the city chemist to the effect that said oil did not come up to the requirements of the specifications — having an excess of three-fourths per cent, of free carbon, indicating the presence of tar or pitch; that the wood blocks treated with this oil would have a tendency to give up excretions of tar or pitch, especially in hot weather, which was in every way objectionable. To avoid this condition the director'of public service under the advice of the city chemist decided to construe the condition in the specifications that required an oil free from carbon to mean commercially free, and should be construed to mean not to have more than three-fourths per cent, thereof. The affidavits filed by-Quill are identical in terms, setting out that both oils were up to the requirements of the specifications. The chemical test, however', [420]*420indicated that the oil submitted with the lowest bid had 2.13 per cent, free carbon and for that reason the bid was not considered.

It was- urged at the beginning of this hearing by counsel for plaintiff that under either bid of Quill he would be required to build the street according to the specifications and therefore nothing but the lowest bid could be entertained.

This court holds that the oil submitted with the bid was a • part of the proposition; and when the proposition was accepted it meant the oil going with that proposition should or at least could be used by the contractor in making the improvement. If the lower bid had been accepted, the city through its proper officers being notified of the kind and quality óf oil to be used with that proposition would be- bound to allow the use of that grade of oil. However, if the city had not made the test and had accepted the lowest bid relying upon the representations of the bidder that the oil complied with the specifications, then the bidder could doubtless have been compelled to furnish such an oil, notwithstanding the gradé or the inferiority of the sample.

As there was some doubt among the bidders as to the amount of free carbon that would be allowed in the oil to be used and the amount of matter in suspension it is but natural that they would be at a loss to know just what grade and cost of oil they should submit with their bids. •

The specifications provide as follows:

“The blocks are to be thoroughly treated with a heavy or ‘dead’ oil of coal tar. - * * * The heavy dead oil of coal tar shall be free from carbon and shall contain not more than two and one-half per cent, of matter in suspension.

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

Tuke v. Sundmaker, 10 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 417 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1910).

10 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 417 (Tuke v. Sundmaker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.