Decision in the Worthington-Boston Suit.

Decision in the Worthington-Boston Suit.

A decision was given by Judge Colt in the United States Circuit Court on Saturday favorable to the defendant in the case of Charles C. Worthington et al. vs. The City of Boston. This was an action to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract, dated May 19, 1885, by which the plaintiffs were to furnish two high-service pumping engines for the city of Boston for $106,575. The city refused to receive the engines on the ground that the Boston water board, through whom the contract was made, had no authority to make any contract involving more than $10,000 without first advertising for proposals, which was not done. The engines were to be erected by the plaintiffs at the Chestnut Hill reservoir—oneof 10,000,000 and one of 5,000,000 gallons daily capacity. “ The ground upon which I decide against the plaintiffs on this point is that the ordinance obliged the board to advertise for proposals, and that it was beyond their power to waive or dispense with this requirement, and that, therefore, the contract which was made and upon which the plaintiffs rely was void.” The case has been appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision in the Worthington-Boston Suit.

0

Decision in the Worthington-Boston Suit.

A decision was given by Judge Colt in the United States Circuit Court on Saturday favorable to the defendant in the case of Charles C. Worthington et al. vs. The City of Boston. This was an action to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract, dated May 19, 1885, by which the plaintiffs were to furnish two high-service pumping engines for the city of Boston for $106,575. The city refused to receive the engines on the ground that the Boston water board, through whom the contract was made, had no authority to make any contract involving more than $10,000 without first advertising for proposals, which was not done. The engines were to be erected by the plaintiffs at the Chestnut Hill reservoir—oneof 10,000,000 and one of 5,000,000 gallons daily capacity. “ The ground upon which I decide against the plaintiffs on this point is that the ordinance obliged the board to advertise for proposals, and that it was beyond their power to waive or dispense with this requirement, and that, therefore, the contract which was made and upon which the plaintiffs rely was void.” The case has been appealed to the Supreme Court.