Capital Printing Co. v. Hoey

33 S.E. 160, 124 N.C. 767, 1899 N.C. LEXIS 117
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedMay 13, 1899
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 33 S.E. 160 (Capital Printing Co. v. Hoey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Capital Printing Co. v. Hoey, 33 S.E. 160, 124 N.C. 767, 1899 N.C. LEXIS 117 (N.C. 1899).

Opinions

Montgomery, J.

This is an application made by the plaintiff company for writs of mandumus against those of the defendants who are alleged to be members of the Joint Committee on Printing of the General Assembly of 1899, to compel them to execute a written contract with the plaintiff in accordance with an alleged agreement with the plaintiff and that Committee, by which the plaintiff was to do the public printing for the State, and against the Secretary of State, who is also' a defendant, to compel him to deliver the copies and manuscripts of Laws, Journals, .Documents and other matter to be printed by the State, to the plaintiff as Public Printer. Injunctive relief was asked against the other defendants, Edwards & Broughton and E. M. Uzzell. All of the defendants answered, and then, all except thé Secretary of State demurred ore tenus to the complaint, on the ground that the complaint did not state a cause of action against Edwards & Broughton and Uzzell, and that the Court was without jurisdiction as to the other defendants, as the proceeding was against the State of North Carolina, and could [769]*769not be maintained on that account. His Honor sustained tbe demurrer and dismissed tbe proceeding, and from tbe judgment tbe plaintiff appealed.

Tbe facts stated in the complaint are to be taken as true— tbe effect of the demurrer. From tbe complaint it appears that by an Act ratified on tbe 24th of January, 1899, those of tbe defendants who were appointed -a joint committee on printing were directed on tbe part of tbe State to execute and deliver a contract for tbe public printing and binding. Tbe first, second, third, fourth and fifth Sections of tbe Act, are in tbe following words:

. “Sec. 1. Tbe joint committee on printing are directed on tbe part of tbe State, to make, execute and deliver a contract for tbe public printing and binding at not more than tbe following rates: For every one thousand ems of plain composition, 30 cents; for every one thousand ems of rale and figure work, 60 cents; for every token of two hundred and forty impressions of press work, 20 cents; for law sheep binding, 45 cents per volume of 600 pages; for half binding, 20 cents per volume of 600 pages; for every 48 pages over 600, one cent per volume. Tbe contract, however, shall be made with tbe person whose bid shall require payment from tbe State of tbe least amount of money on account thereof. The necessary freight and other expense to be incurred by accepting any proposition for the public printing shall be taken into consideration, so that tbe work may be done and the printed matter be delivered for distribution in tbe city of Raleigh at tbe lowest price obtainable from a responsible bidder. The said committee shall have tbe right to reject any bid, if in its opinion tbe same is not made by responsible parties, and in awarding tbe said contract, regard shall be bad to tbe character of the work to be done, and of tbe quality of the material to be used, in passing on tbe responsibility of tbe bidder: [770]*770Provided the contract shall be let to a person or firm in the State of North Carolina. And for all job printing and binding ordered by the State Departments and the subdepart-ments thereof, the usual customary rate charged by printers for such work, to be approved by the Commissioner of Labor and Printing as hereinafter provided for.

Sue. 2. The parties to whom the said committee may award the public printing and binding shall give bond, with approved security payable to the State of North Carolina in the sum of five thousand dollars, conditioned for the faithful performance of his duties and undertakings under said contract, and under this Act the surety or sureties herein required, shall justify before some person authorized to administer oaths.

Sec. 3. Each bill for printing shall be charged by the “quad em” and “token,” and the binding per volume; and before being paid for by the State, shall be examined and ajoproved by the “Commissioner of Labor and Printing,” who shall impartially examine said printing and binding, and determine both the manner of its execution and the correctness of its accounts rendered for the same.

Sec. 4. The Public Printer may select such quality and quantity of paper as may be necessary for doing the public printing, which requisition shall be approved by said “Commissioner of Labor and Printing,” and upon such requisition it shall be the duty of Secretary of State to purchase said paper and turn the same over to the public printer, taking his receipt for the same.

Section six of the Act contains a proviso as follows: "Provided, That when printing the reports of State officers and State institutions, the public printer shall print of said reports the number of copies necessary for binding in the public documents, and for the copies required for public documents said printer shall be paid in addition to the press work, [771]*771only for changing heads and folios of said reports, such amount as said Commissioner of Labor and Printing shall allow therefor.”

Under the Act of Assembly, the Committee met on the day after the ratification of the Act to receive bids on the public printing, when Edwards & Broughton, Nash Bros., E. M. Uzzell and the plaintiff company appeared and handed in their bids to the committee, and the bids were opened in the presence of the bidders and their respective attorneys. It was conceded then and there by all the bidders that the bid of the plaintiff was the lowest bid and was as follows: “For plain composition, per 1,000 ems twenty cents; for rule and figure work, per 1,000 ems forty cents; for every token of 240 impressions of press work, eleven cents; for law sheep binding, per volume of 600 pages, thirty-five cents; for half binding, per volume of 600 pages, fourteen cents; for binding every 48 pages over 600, per volume, one-fourth of one cent; for all other work the prices named in the Act.”

The bid of Edwards & Broughton was at the prices named in the Act as maximum.

The particulars of the acceptance of the’ plaintiff’s bid appear in the seventh, eighth, and ninth allegations of the complaint, as follows:”

7. That afterwards, to-wit, on February 28, 1899, said Joint Committee met for the purpose of passing on the responsibility of plaintiff, and after hearing evidence and examining samples of work done by plaintiff, found as a fact that plaintiff was responsible, and approved its bond for $5,000, with the surety thereon, which was tendered by plaintiff; and said Joint Committee, then and there by a vote accepted pliantiff’s said bid and awarded to plaintiff the contract for said public printing, pursuant to the terms of said Act, and in accordance with its said bid.'

[772]*7728. Tbat thereupon said Joint Committee appointed M. H. Justice, Clyde R. Hoey and S. M. Gattis as a sub-committee to reduce to writing said contract made as aforesaid between tbe State of North Carolina and plaintiff.

9. That at the time said contract was let to plaintiff as aforesaid, Edwards & Broughton, who had been theretofore doing the public printing temporarily, had in their hands certain matter to be printed for the House of Representatives, which they promptly returned without printing; that the same was at once given to plaintiff by the proper officers of the House, and other matter to be printed for both the House and the Senate was sent to plaintiff by the proper officers of those bodies; and plaintiff was instructed by Clyde R.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Matter of Application of Air Terminal Services, Inc.
393 P.2d 60 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1964)
Stabler v. Porter
232 P. 187 (Montana Supreme Court, 1924)
City of Cleveland v. Thomas
15 Ohio App. 76 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1921)
State v. Board of Public Service
81 Ohio St. (N.S.) 218 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1909)
Camp v. McLin
44 Fla. 510 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1902)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
33 S.E. 160, 124 N.C. 767, 1899 N.C. LEXIS 117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/capital-printing-co-v-hoey-nc-1899.