# Mulcahy v. Bd. of Education

> Ohio Court of Appeals · February 26, 1925 · 25 Ohio App. 492

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3710991

## Case

- **Full name:** Mulcahy, a Taxpayer v. Board of Education of Akron City School District.
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** February 26, 1925
- **Citations:** 25 Ohio App. 492; 3 Ohio Law. Abs. 445; 159 N.E. 324; 1925 Ohio App. LEXIS 249
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Washburn
- **Judges:** Washburn
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3710991

## Opinion text

WASHBURN, J.
The Board of Education received bids, July 22, 1924, for the construction of a school building to be completed by Sept. 1, 1925. On Aug. 26, 1924 the board made an award to Clemmer-Johnson Co. but no Contract was entered into as it was prevented by institution of a suit in the Summit Common Pleas, by Cornelius Mulcahy, a taxpayer.
Without readvertising, the Board awarded a contract to the C. W. & P. Construction Co. for the construction of a major portion of the building, and within a few days thereafter, entered into a contract with such company, which provided that the building should be completed July 1, 1926. Mulcahy prayed for an injunction restraining the performance of the contract with the Construction Co. and judgment was rendered in his favor, in the Common Pleas. The Board took the appealed case and the Court of Appeals held:
1. In our judgment the contract with the Construction ■ Co. cannot be upheld for the reason that the clerk of said board did not, before entering into said contract, “first certify that the money required for payment of” such contract w.as “in the treasury to the credit of the fund from which it was to be drawn and not appropriated for any other purpose,” as is provided in 5660 GC.
2. Sec. 5661 GC. provides that “all contracts, agreements---etc., passed or entered into contrary to the foregoing shall be void.”
3. Contract could not be upheld for further reason that it is not a contract in pursuance of and in accordance with the advertisement and plans and specifications upon which the bids were received. For no bids were received for completion by July 1, 1926; and there was no competitive bidding for the contract which was awarded. Injunction allowed as prayed for.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3710991. Public record. Not legal advice.