National Building Supply Co. v. Mayor of Baltimore

Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The question presented for our determination in this case arises upon a demurrer to the plaintiff’s declaration and involves the construction of a contract, made and entered into between the appellant and the appellee. The appellant is a corporation, duly incorporated under the laws of the State, and is engaged in the business of furnishing building supplies and material in the city of Baltimore. The appellee, the Mayor and City Council pf Baltimore, in pursuance of the provisions of the 14th and 15th sections of the Baltimore City Charter on the 9th of January, 1902, advertised for proposals for furnishing cement required by the city for general purposes, during the year 1902.

On the 22nd of January, 1902, the appellant submitted a bid upon one of the printed proposal sheets, furnished by the city, agreeing to furnish cement for general purposes, for the year 1902, and in accordance with certain specifications at the following prices : Domestic Portland Cement (Brand) “Paragon” $1.53 per bbl. The amount of rebate for each barrel returned 10c per bbl. The amount of rebate for each bag returned 10c per bag. The approximate estimate of quantities of Portland Cement to be furnished was stated on the bid to be 5,000 barrels.

And by section 7th of the specifications it was provided, that the approximate quantities are only given as a guide to the bidder but in no way to bind or limit the city as to the amount which is to be'ordered. The bid as thus submitted was accepted by the city, and on the 3rd of February, 1902, a bond and contract was entered into between the appellant and appellee. By the terms of the contract the appellant agreed with the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore to furnish and deliver all the cement which may be required for general purposes in the City Engineer’s Department for the year 1902, the mate ¹⁹³ rial and manner of delivery to conform strictly to the specifications on file in the City Engineer’s office, and these specifications were made a part of the contract. And it was further agreed that for all the cement furnished and accepted by the City Engineer, the appellant company should receive the sum named in its bid.

It appears that in pursuance of this contract, proposal and specifications, the appellant furnished and delivered to the city five thousand barrels of cement under the contract, which was-accepted and paid for by the appellee at the contract price, but cement having advanced in price, the appellant, on the 1st of November, 1902, refused to accept any further orders or to-deliver any more cement under the contract. Subsequently,, by an agreement between the parties, the appellant furnished and delivered to the city 1,483 additional barrels during the year 1902, at the contract