Stone v. Mayo

WOOD, J., (after stating the facts). In Watkins v. Stough, 103 Ark. 468- 471, there was a contract let for the construction of certain bridges to the lowest bidder at public outcry. The facts are very similar to the case at bar. There was testimony tending to show that when the contract was offered at public outcry the county judge made a public announcement that county warrants could be cashed at 50-55 -cents on the dollar. The contract was let for the construction of the bridge at $3.40 per linear foot. The contract was attacked on the ground that the bid for the work was based on depreciated county scrip and that a fair cash price for construction of the bridges would have been $2 per linear foot. In that case the trial court found that the contractor used no fraud or deception in procuring the contract and was the lowest bidder for the contract. In that case we said: “When a contract, free from fraud or collusion, is entered into pursuant to the terms of the statute for the construction of a bridge, and the work is done according to the contract, the stipulated price becomes a valid claim against the county, payable, as are other claims, in warrants on the treasury. If the contract does not disclose on its face an illegal agreement for an increase of price on account of payment in depreciated warrants, or unless the proof establishes collusion to increase the bids on account of payment in depreciated warrants, then the reasons for the successful bidder fixing the amount of his bid can not be inquired into for the purpose of avoiding the contract.” That case controls this. Here was a straight contract for the construction of the courthouse for $91,-806.90. There was no evidence of any collusion among the bidders to perpetrate a fraud on the court to have the contract let at a higher price because of the depreciated value of the county warrants, nor is there any testimony to warrant the conclusion that the county court entered into a collusion with the contractor to give him the contract at an increased price because the value of the county scrip was less than par. The fact that the bidders made inquiry and ascertained that the value of the county warrants was less than par and made their bid with -such knowledge does not establish that there was a collusion between them to stifle the bidding and to defraud the court by securing a contract at a higher price on account of the depreciated value of the county warrants. There is no allegation that the county court, or its commissioner, or the bidder, in securing the contract, were guilty of any fraud. The complaint sets out the bid which, strictly construed, on its face calls for the payment of $91,000 in county warrants at “70-125 base,” which would necessitate the issuance of county warrants to the amount of about $118,000. If the contract had been expressed in these terms there would be grounds for saying that upon its face it was a fraud upon the court, but as already stated tbe contract calls for tbe payment of $91,000 in county warrants without any increase of tbe contract price on account of tbe warrants being below par. Tbe decree is, therefore, correct and is affirmed.