LEININGER v. H. L. CANNADY CO.

LEININGER v. H. L. CANNADY CO.
1929 OK 493
282 P. 474
139 Okla. 301
Case Number: 19628
Decided: 11/19/1929
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

LEININGER et al.
v.
H. L. CANNADY CO.

Syllabus

¶0 1. Highways--Authority of Highway Commission in Construction of State Highway System.
Under the provisions of section 10, chapter 48, S. L. 1923-24, the State Highway Commission is vested with all of the authority necessary to construct a state highway system at the earliest possible time, consistent with good business management, from the funds available, in such manner as shall be to the best interest and advantage to the people of the state and to pay therefor, including "* * * all expenses and contingencies in connection with the construction and maintenance of such highway system, * * *" except as limited by the provisions of section 12, of said chapter.
2. Same--Validity of Contract for Construction on Unit Basis.
The nature of the work involved in the construction of a state highway system is such that no definite contract can be agreed upon, and a contract for such work must be sufficiently elastic to provide for the correction of engineering errors and changes in plans, and in order to provide therefor the State Highway Commission, in its discretion, is authorized to contract for such work on a unit basis, settlement under the contract to be computed at the completion of the work on a computation of the units of work performed.
3. Same--Validity of Extension of Contract to Include Additional Mileage.
Where a contract is made for the construction of a part of the state highway system on a unit basis and the State Highway Commission extends that contract on the same basis to provide for the construction of a continuation of the portion of the state highway system embodied in the contract, and there is no fraud or collusion and no abuse of discretion of the State Highway Commission, and the value of the work done under the extension agreement is reasonably worth the amount agreed to be paid therefor, the contractor is entitled to recover for said work the amount agreed to be paid as determined from a computation of the units of work performed.
4. Same--Effect of Statutory Provision.
The limitation provided by section 12, chapter 48, S. L. 1923-24, has a definite purpose. Its sole purpose is to obtain the best results at the lowest cost, greatest value for the fewest dollars; in other words, it is a means for making the best possible bargains, the means expressly adopted by the Legislature for obtaining such results. The determination of the details of the contract and what is necessary to obtain the best results at the lowest cost, the greatest value for the fewest dollars and the best possible bargains is for the State Highway Commission, subject to control by the courts where there is an abuse of discretion, fraud, or collusion.
5. Constitutional Law--Statutes--Effect of Practical Construction of Provisions by Officers.
The construction placed on statutes or constitutional provisions by officers in the discharge of their duties, either at or near the time of the enactment, which has been long acquiesced in, is a just medium for its judicial interpretation.
6. Same--Highways--Construction Contract with Highway Commission Held Valid.
Defendant in error's contract having been entered into in good faith under a departmental construction which has been in force for a substantial period of time and under which numerous other contracts had been made and carried out without question as to their validity, and defendant in error having faithfully complied with every requirement thereof, performed all of the work and labor and furnished all of the material required to be furnished, and there being no allegation of fraud, collusion, or abuse of discretion, the contract is approved.

Error from District Court, Pottawatomie County; Hal Johnson, Judge.

Mandamus by the H. L. Cannady Company against H. W. Leininger et al., composing the State Highway Commission, et al. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Edwin Dabney, Atty. Gen., Wm. L. Murphy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Edward M. Box, and Park Wyatt, for plaintiffs in error.
Hall & Thompson and G. A. Paul, for defendant in error.

ANDREWS, J.

¶1 From the brief of plaintiffs in error it appears that this is a companion case to cause No. 19627, Leininger et al. v. Ward-Beekman & Brooks, Inc., 139 Okla. 292, 282 P. 467, and that the facts are similar except as to the amount claimed, the date of the contract, the date of performance, location of the work, and the units of work performed. This case is submitted on the argument in the briefs in cause No. 19627.

¶2 It is unnecessary for this court to discuss the questions involved here further than they have been discussed in cause No. 19627, and the rule therein announced is announced as the rule in this case.