Capuano, Inc. vs. School Building Committee of Wilbraham & others

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court1953-11-03

330 Mass. 494

Summary · law.co

Holding. The demurrers were properly sustained and the bill was properly dismissed because the complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to state a cause of action for equitable relief, and courts lack authority to review the school building committee's determination of which bidder was the lowest responsible and eligible bidder absent allegations of illegal or arbitrary conduct. The interlocutory and final decrees dismissing the bill are affirmed.

Capuano, Inc. submitted the lowest bid for a school building construction project but alleged that the school building committee intended to award the contract to a higher bidder in violation of state law requiring awards to the lowest responsible and eligible bidder. Capuano sought an injunction to prevent the committee from awarding the contract to anyone other than the lowest bidder and to prevent the competing bidders from proceeding with work. The building committee and the competing bidders filed demurrers challenging the legal sufficiency of the complaint.

The court found the complaint legally deficient for two reasons. First, Capuano alleged only that it was the lowest bidder but failed to allege that it was the lowest responsible and eligible bidder as required by statute. Second, Capuano made only a vague allegation on information and belief that the contract would not be awarded to it, without alleging that the contract had actually been awarded to someone other than the lowest responsible and eligible bidder. The court further held that even if the complaint had adequately alleged these facts, equity courts lack authority to interfere with discretionary determinations delegated by law to public officials absent a showing of illegal or arbitrary action.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Sufficiency of allegations in complaint concerning lowest responsible and eligible bidder status
Equity court jurisdiction over discretionary determinations by public officials
Justiciability of public official decision-making absent illegality or arbitrariness

Procedural posture

Capuano appealed from interlocutory decrees sustaining demurrers and a final decree dismissing its bill in equity.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Williams, J.

In this bill in equity it is alleged that the defendants Swetland, Aperici, Cordner, Gale, Green, Hintze, and Howes are members of the school building committee of the town of Wilbraham; that they advertised for bids for the construction of an addition to a school building; that the plaintiff submitted a bid of $88,845 which was the lowest bid; that the defendants W. J. Quinn and James M. Quinn, doing business as W. J. Quinn Company, submitted a bid of $90,500; and that on information and belief the contract “is not to be awarded to it [the plaintiff], as the lowest responsible and eligible bidder.” It is prayed that the school building committee be enjoined from awarding the contract “to any one other than the lowest bidder” and that the Quinns be enjoined “from commencing work or taking any other action under said award ... for the construction of . . . [the] addition.” The defendant members of the school building committee filed a joint demurrer, as did the Quinns, each demurrer alleging that the bill did not state facts entitling the plaintiff to relief in equity and did not set forth any substantive facts necessary to constitute a cause of action. The demurrers were sustained by interlocutory decrees. The plaintiff appeals from these decrees and from a final decree dismissing the bill.

The bill purports to allege a threatened violation by the building committee of G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 149, § 44A, as appearing in St. 1941, c. 699, § 1, which, in substance, provides that a building committee of a town which is empowered to contract for the alteration or remodeling of a public building at an estimated cost of more than $1,000 shall award the contract “on the basis of competitive bids to the lowest responsible and eligible bidder.” While it is alleged in the bill that the plaintiff was the lowest bidder, it is nowhere alleged that if was the lowest responsible and eligible bidder. Nor is it alleged that the contract has been awarded to the Quinns or to other than the lowest responsible and eligible bidder. All that appears is the vague statement that on information and belief the contract is not to be awarded to the plaintiff as the lowest responsible and eligible bidder. If this allegation be construed to mean that the committee does not intend to make the award in conformity with statutory provisions, it is clear that the bill does not make out a cause for relief in equity. The determination of who was the lowest responsible and eligible bidder was a matter delegated to the building committee. Ordinarily courts of equity will not interfere to decide questions committed by law to the determination of public officials. Mullholland v. State Racing Commission, 295 Mass. 286, 291-292. Criscuolo v. Department of Public Utilities, 302 Mass. 438, 442. The court has no authority to take from such officers the duty of deciding the questions submitted to them and in the absence of illegal or arbitrary action their conclusions as to matters of fact within their jurisdiction cannot be controverted. Moneyweight Scale Co. v. McBride, 199 Mass. 503, 505. Shuman v. Gilbert, 229 Mass. 225. Morley v. Police Commissioner of Boston, 261 Mass. 269, 278. Stretch v. Timilty, 309 Mass. 267, 270-271. Compare Gifford v. Commissioner of Public Health, 328 Mass. 608.

The demurrers were rightly sustained on both grounds alleged. The interlocutory decrees are affirmed and the final decree is affirmed with costs.

So ordered.