| Packard v. Hayes, 94 Md. 233, 51 A. 32 (1902)
Appeal from Baltimore City Circuit Court
OVERVIEW: The commissioner of street cleaning advertised for proposals for the collection and disposal of garbage, dead animals, ashes, and miscellaneous refuse. The board of awards forwarded all bids to the commissioner to evaluate. The commissioner rejected the lowest bid, apparently because of the proposed method for disposing of the refuse. The board then awarded the contract to the next lowest bidder, and the taxpayer brought this action to enjoin the city from entering into the contract. On appeal, the court reversed. The court agreed with the taxpayer that 1898 Md. Laws 123, § 15 conferred upon the board but a single power, which was to open the bids and award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder. The court held that the board was not given any power to make comparisons or to determine anything respecting materials offered or work proposed or the means of its execution. Nor was there any authority vested in any other agency of the municipality to take such actions in connection with awarding contracts under § 15. Because the board awarded the contract on the basis of a previously unspecified essential of the contract, the court held that the contract was ultra vires and void.
Appellate Court Records:
COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) Packard v. Hayes, 1902, January Term, case no. 8, p. 328, MdHR 640 [MSA S412-14, 1/66/14/45]
COURT OF APPEALS (Opinions) Packard v. Hayes, 1902, January Term, case no. 8, MdHR 707-142 [MSA S393-128, 1/65/13/74]
COURT OF APPEALS (Records and Briefs) Packard v. Hayes, 1901, October Term, case no. 43 [MSA S1733-176, 1/65/2/25]
COURT OF APPEALS (Misc. Papers) Packard v. Hayes, 1902, January Term, case no. 8, MdHR 708-28 [MSA S397-22, 1/65/6/14]
Trial Court Records:
BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Docket A) Hayes v. Packard, 1901, Liber 40A, p. 268? [MSA T55-40, 3/4/1/23]
BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Papers A) Hayes v. Packard, 1901,
Baltimore City Archives:
Baltimore City Solicitor case file no. 228 |
