Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
The People, ex rel. Abraham Dowdney, Appellant, v. Hubert O. Thompson, Commissioner, etc., Respondent, 1885 — 99 N.Y. 641 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
The People, ex rel. Abraham Dowdney, Appellant, v. Hubert O. Thompson, Commissioner, etc., Respondent
99 N.Y. 641·New York Court of Appeals·1885·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
The People, ex rel. Abraham Dowdney, Appellant, v. Hubert O. Thompson, Commissioner, etc., Respondent.
(Argued April 28, 1885;
decided May 5, 1885.)
This was an appeal from order of G-eneral Term, which reversed an order of Special Term, granting a peremptory ma/ndamus commanding defendant, as commissioner of public works of the city of Eew York, to execute a contract to the relator for certain works for which he was a bidder.
The following is the mem. of opinion.
“ The relator was not the lowest bidder for the work, but he claims the contract therefor because of a technical defect which is alleged to make the lowest bid so defective and irregular as to require its rejection. If his contention is well founded, that he is absolutely entitled to the contract because, under chapter 308 of the Laws of 1861, it must be deemed “ confirmed in and to him ” at the time the bid was opened, then he has a sufficient remedy at law by an action to recover his damages, and the court was not absolutely bound to grant the writ of mandamus, and it could, in the exercise of its discretion, refuse it. (People, ex rel. Lunney, v. Campbell, 72 N. Y. 496.) That discretion is not reviewable here, and the appeal should be dismissed, with costs.”
John C. Shaw for appellant.
D. J. Dean for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam]
Per Curiam
opinion for dismissal of appeal.
All concur.
Appeal dismissed.