
    JAMES DEVLIN ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. MAYOR, ETC., OF JERSEY CITY ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
    Argued November 24, 1916
    Decided March 5, 1917.
    On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which the following per curiam was filed:
    “We think the contract must be treated as a single contract for repairs to various streets. In such a contract much must necessarily be left to the judgment of the city authorities, such as the streets to he paved. Fo doubt this opens the door to favoritism, but wo have no right to assume that the selection of the streets to he repaired at any particular time will he governed by any consideration except the public need.
    “The extent of the obligation under the maintenance bond will depend on the amount of work done, and we see no valid objection on this score. All bidders seem to have had the same chance.
    
      "In repair work of this kind it is probably impossible to state accurately all the work that may bo required, such as the depth of binder on the asphalt pavements and the grade to which the bituminous concrete pavement is to be brought.
    “We think the conditions on which bidders wore required to bid were slated as definitely as was probably practicable and that there should be judgment for the defendants.'’
    For the respondents, J. Emil Walscheid.
    
    For the appellants, Collins & Corbin.
    
   Per Curiam.

The judgment under review will be affirmed, for fhe reasons sot forth in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

For affirmance, —Tue Chancellor, Chief Justice, Garrison, Trexchard, Burden, Black, Williams, JJ. 7.

For re ver to. I— Pa r in er , White, Gardner, JJ. 3.  