State Ex Rel. W. R. Clark Printing & Binding Co. v. Lee

158 So. 461, 117 Fla. 779
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedDecember 31, 1934
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 158 So. 461 (State Ex Rel. W. R. Clark Printing & Binding Co. v. Lee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State Ex Rel. W. R. Clark Printing & Binding Co. v. Lee, 158 So. 461, 117 Fla. 779 (Fla. 1934).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Chapter 14824, Acts of 1931, provides that all public printing shall be divided into two classes. As to Class A it is made the duty of the Board of Commissioners of State Institutions to call for bids and let contracts therefor to printers whose manufacturing plants are located within the State of Florida. As to Class B it is provided that no general contract shall be let to cover the class of printing designated as' Class B, which latter class embraces all of the printing required by the State of Florida not included in Class A. The latter is the printing required to be done for the legislative department and the publication of the Supreme Court Reports. As to Clas's B it is provided that each (printing) job coming under the classification shall be let separately by the department to’ which it belongs “to the lowest responsible bidder who shall manufacture the same within the State.”

Chapter 14824 is an amendment of Section 1981 C. G. L., 1305 R. G. S., and is in pari materia with Sections 1978, 1979, 1980, 1982 C. G. L., 1302, 1303, 1304, 1306, R. G. S., the other statutory provisions' on the subject of public printing.

The requirement of the Florida statutes that all public *781 printing shall be so awarded that it will be done within the State of Florida within printing plants located within the State, carries with it the necessary implication that the particular service essential to the execution of a particular “job” shall be reasonably procurable in the State of Florida at the time the job or contract for it is to be let—the purpose of the law being to favor with the State’s printing business those printing plants' and shops doing business in Florida, which may be capable and desirous of fulfilling the particular printing requirements of State Departments and other State agencies having need for the procurement of public printing for their use.

Under the foregoing statutes all of the public printing of the State of Florida must, where there are Florida concerns' prepared to submit competitive bids for doing it, be let out to and executed in plants located within the State of Florida and any arrangement or device, directly or indirectly entered into, for having it done otherwise, is void and of no effect because prohibited by statute.

But the statutes hereinbefore referred to are applicable only to what may be properly classified as public printing. Section 1990 C. G. L., 1311 R. G. S., requiring the State Comptroller to purchase from parties in Florida manufacturing the same, all the blank books, stationery and paper, etc., to be used in the different departments, provided the same can be bought on as fair and reasonable terms as elsewhere, taking quality into consideration, cannot be judicially extended to cover purchases of the specified materials' when authorized by statute to be made otherwise than through the .Comptroller’s office, although the policy of that statute to favor Florida concerns with Florida business may consistently be adopted and followed by other departments in keeping with the spirit of Florida law as thereby made evident.

The alternative writ of mandamus in this case, to which *782 a motion to quash is' directed by the respondent Comptroller, must, for the purposes of the motion, be taken as true.

The writ alleges, among other things, as follows:

“That W. R. Clark Printing and Binding Company, Inc., is engaged in the manufacturing and selling of office supplies and is sole owner and sole producer of a class of office supplies generally known and identified as ‘Zip-Out' Carbon Stripper. ‘Zip-Out' is produced and manufactured in the following form and manner to-wit:

“(a) A series of sheets of paper are cemented together and likewise a comparative number of sheets of carbon paper of the same size and form are properly placed between the sheets of document paper and likewise attached by cement. The process is that by inserting the completed form in a typewriter, that same will remain intact until the typing is finished and then because of perforations in the paper the carbon may in an instant be detached from the sheets leaving all of the typing on the copy in a regular and properly spaced manner. In addition to producing a very neat and properly spaced carbon copy there is considerable saving of time on the part of the typist by virtue of the stationery and carbon having been properly and previously cemented together; all of which will more fully appear from two sheets of ‘Zip-Out' products' hereto attached and marked Exhibit ‘A’ and ‘B’ respectively and made a part hereof by reference.

“That by virtue of being the owner of the patent rights of ‘Zip-Out' products, the relator, W. R. Clark Printing and Binding Company, Inc., is entitled to a royalty for the use thereof. That the said W. R. Clark Printing and Binding Company, Inc., is likewise entitled to payment for the stationery, carbon and cement used therein in addition to the royalty and that the said W. R. Clark Printing and Binding Company, Inc., has' not authorized or licensed any *783 other company or companies to join in the manufacture of ‘Zip-Out’ products.

“That as an inducement to sell ‘Zip-Out’ products as aforesaid and to therefore sell the cement, carbon papers and stationery and to collect thereon and therefrom a reasonable royalty, the said W. R. Clark Printing and Binding Company, Inc., frequently make up printed forms leaving proper spacing for filling in desired information by a typist, but that said printing is done primarily for the purpose of introducing ‘Zip-Out’ products to the public generally and as an inducement to buy ‘Zip-Out’ products as afores'aid and not in pursuance- of any contract to do any binding, or printing.

“That George H. Wilder is acting Motor Vehicle Commissioner of the State of Florida and under the laws of the State of Florida, and that L. B. Bowman is Chief Clerk thereof and that in their respective official capacities they are authorized to purchase office supplies' to be used and consumed by the office of the Motor Vehicle Commissioner of the State of Florida.

“That on or about July 9, A. D. 1934, the said George H. Wilder in his official capacity as aforesaid, purchased from relator, W. R. Clark Printing and Binding Company, Inc., Ten Thousand (10,000) ‘Sets four part Automobile Registration Blanks' Size 4 x 6—collated with carbon in Unit Pad Sets perforated for Zip-Out carbon stripper Clark Invention Process patent pending, at a cost of Four Dollars and Twenty Cents ($4.20) per thousand and that said products, as hereinbefore specifically set out, are Zip-Out products.

“That the particular item purchased by the said Motor Vehicle Commissioner of the State of Florida is used in the securing of information from applicants for the registering of automobiles' by the said Motor Vehicle Commis *784 sioner of the State of Florida and that same consists of four sheets of stationery with three sheets of carbon paper inserted in between, all of which is cemented together, constituting a ‘Zip-Out’ Carbon Stripper protected by patent as aforesaid; all of which will more fully appear from a copy of said item hereto attached and marked Exhibit ‘A’ and made a part of this petition by reference.

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

Related

Chiles v. Milligan
654 So. 2d 556 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1995)
Ago
Florida Attorney General Reports, 1978
Florida Development Commission v. Dickinson
229 So. 2d 6 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1969)
Robinson's, Inc. v. Short
146 So. 2d 108 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1962)
State Ex Rel. Lee v. Hartman
367 P.2d 918 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1961)
State Ex Rel. Arthur Kudner, Inc. v. Lee
7 So. 2d 110 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1942)
State Ex Rel. Stringer v. Lee
2 So. 2d 127 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1941)
State Ex Rel. W. R. Clark Printing & Binding Co. v. Lee
163 So. 702 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1935)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
158 So. 461, 117 Fla. 779, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-w-r-clark-printing-binding-co-v-lee-fla-1934.