Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BROADWAY MAINTENANCE CORPORATION v. HEMPHILL (07/24/62)

July 24, 1962

BROADWAY MAINTENANCE CORPORATION
v.
HEMPHILL, APPELLANT.



Appeal, No. 346, Jan. T., 1962, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas No. 4 of Philadelphia County, March T., 1962, No. 1854, in case of Broadway Maintenance Corporation v. Alexander Hemphill, City Controller of City of Philadelphia. Judgment affirmed.

COUNSEL

Karl I. Schofield, Assistant City Solicitor, James L. Stern, Deputy City Solicitor, Levy Anderson, First Deputy City Solicitor, and David Berger, City Solicitor, for appellant.

Alexander Hemphill, appellant, in propria persona, submitted a brief.

Howard Gittis, Thomas D. McBride, and Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen, for appellee.

Before Bell, C.j., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen and O'brien, JJ.

Author: Eagen

[ 408 Pa. Page 273]

OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE EAGEN

In this action of mandamus, judgment was entered on the pleadings against the defendant, the Controller of the City of Philadelphia. The legal correctness of this judgment is questioned by this appeal.

The basic and controlling facts, all undenied and admitted in the pleadings, are as follows:

The Department of Streets and the Procurement Department of the City of Philadelphia advertised for the submission of competitive bids for the cost of the work necessary to the maintenance of street and alley light equipment and also street parking meters in the city during the year 1962. The plaintiff corporation submitted the lowest bids and was awarded the contracts. The City Council appropriated the money necessary, which sums were budgeted for these specific purposes.

The city's law department prepared the necessary formal contracts, which were then legally executed by the plaintiff. Moreover, the plaintiff duly and properly performed all conditions precedent, including the filing of performance bonds with adequate surety and required certificates of insurance.

Further, all city officials, whose approval is required under the provisions of the City Charter prior to action by the city controller, formally approved the contracts. More than five months passed, during which period, the defendant retained possession of the contracts without definitive action. In the meantime, because of the urgency of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.