Mills v. Bellmer (1874) · DecisionDepot

Mills v. Bellmer

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1874Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a public official lacks the authority to impose bidding conditions not required by statute, and therefore the most favorable bid must be accepted even if it fails to meet such unauthorized conditions.

Issues

Whether a treasurer has the authority to impose bidding conditions not specified by statute.
Whether a bid must be rejected for failing to comply with unauthorized conditions imposed by a ministerial officer.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the Treasurer had no authority to impose upon bidders conditions of the character here attempted”

“the power to impose the condition here attempted was not to be implied from the duty to advertise, because the condition imposed by the officer was not only not necessary to the exercise of his authority, but wholly foreign to it.”

Synopsis

Duty of Officers who advertise for Bids.—When a County Treasurer is authorized by statute to advertise for bids for the surrender of County bonds, in order that he may redeem them with money in the treasury, he has no authority, in the advertisement, to insert a condition upon which bids will be received, which is not to be implied from the duty to advertise, and which is not necessary to the exercise of his authority; such as that the bonds must accompany the bid; and it is his duty to accept the most favorable bid, even if not accompanied by the bonds.

The Court held that the bid of Uhler was entitled to be considered, notwithstanding is was not accompanied by the. bonds therein referred to. It was of opinion that Uhler, being the most favorable bidder, his bid should have been accepted upon the express provision of the statute, and that the Treasurer had no authority to impose upon bidders conditions of the character here attempted, whereby it might occur that a bid the most favorable to the public, and made in conformity to the actual requirements of statute, would, nevertheless, be rejected, because of non-compliance with some condition imposed by the ministerial officer to whom the duty of merely advertising for bids was committed by the statute. The Court was of opinion that the power to impose the condition here attempted was not to be implied from the duty to advertise, because the condition imposed by the officer was not only not necessary to the exercise of his authority, but wholly foreign to it.

The judgment was affirmed.

Mills v. Bellmer

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief