Camp v. Mclin

• Decision Date: 11 June 1902
• Citation: 44 Fla. 510,32 So. 927
• Court: Florida Supreme Court
• Parties: CAMP et al. v. McLIN, Com'r of Agriculture, et al.

32 So. 927

44 Fla. 510

CAMP et al. v. McLIN, Com'r of Agriculture, et al.

Florida Supreme Court

June 11, 1902

Appeal from circuit court, Leon county; John W. Malone, Judge.

Suit by William N. Camp and another against Benjamin E. McLin commissioner of agriculture, and others. From a judgment dismissing the bill, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

On October 22, 1901, appellants filed their bill in equity against appellees in the circuit court of Leon county alleging that on February 13, 1901, the board of commissioners of state institutions, consisting of the governor, secretary of state, treasurer, comptroller superintendent of public instruction, attorney general, and the defendant McLin, commissioner of agriculture, was in session, a quorum being present, for the purpose of transacting such business as might come before it; that at and during said session on said day the board made to complainants the direct and distinct proposition and offer to lease to complainants 300 state convicts, at the price of $100 each per annum, for the period of four years, commencing January 1, 1902, $10 for each of said convicts to be paid down in cash by complainants upon the execution of a contract embracing said proposition and offer, and all other usual provisions of such a contract; that thereupon complainants being then and there present and represented at said session, immediately accepted said proposition and offer unconditionally, and thereupon the board at said session on said day, by and through the governor, and in the presence of said board, then and there drafted and proposed a written contract of lease, embracing the said proposition and offer and the said terms and provisions, which said contract was drafted and prepared by filling up the blanks in a typewritten form of a contract that the board had prior to said day prescribed and adopted as being in accordance with the laws of Florida in such cases provided; that immediately after said contract was prepared, and on the said day, said McLin, as commissioner of agriculture, voluntarily and by the direction and request of said governor, and by the request of the board and in its presence, executed said contract by signing his name thereto officially and affixing his private seal; that thereupon on the said day each of the complainants executed said contract by signing his name thereto and affixing his private seal, which execution was in the presence of, and duly attested by, two competent witnesses, and said contract so executed was on the next day delivered to said McLin, commissioner, and received by him; that at said session the said board, by and through the said governor, dreafted and prepared a bond, with two sureties, in the penal sum of $7,500, conditioned in accordance with the laws of Florida in such case made and provided, to secure the due performance of such contract, and delivered same to complainants, to be executed by them and by such sureties; that said bond was dated February 13, 1901, and on said day was duly executed by each of the complainants signing his name and affixing his seal thereto; that W. S. West and C. B. Rogers, sureties named in said bond, did on said day duly execute the same by each signing his name and affixing his seal to the same, which execution of said bond by complainants and said sureties was done in the presence of two competent witnesses; that on the same day the said W. S. West and C. B. Rogers each for himself verified and swore to an affidavit before a notary of said state to the effect that each of them possessed in the state of Florida sufficient property to make good the amount mentioned in the bond, unincumbered, and not exempt from sale under legal process; that each of complainants and each of said sureties is the owner of property in the state of Florida, subject to sale on execution, which is worth several times the amount of the penalty of said bond, and not subject to exemption under the laws of the state; that on the 14th day of February, 1901, complainants delivered said bond, executed and proven as aforesaid, to the said McLin, commissioner, and on said day delivered to him $3,000 in United States currency, said sum being the amount required to be paid down by said board and by said contract; that said McLin, commissioner, on said day officially received said bond and said sum of $3,000, and gave complainants a receipt therefor; that said contract was approved by said board at the time same was executed in the manner and form previously alleged; and that afterwards, to wit, on March 2, 1901, said board had no power or authority to reject or abrogate said contract.

The bill further alleged that since the execution of the contract the board and McLin, commissioner, had advertised for bids for convicts, to be received not later than March 20, 1901; that under color of such advertisement other and further bids leasing all the state convicts had been made, including the 300 so leased to complainants; that the board and commissioner had received and entertained said bids; that afterwards, about June 28, 1901, the commissioner, with the approval of the board, entered into another contract with the defendant the Florida Naval Stores & Commission Company, as lessee, by the terms of which the commissioner had covenanted and bound himself to lease and deliver to said defendant company on January 1, 1902, all the convicts and prisoners of the state, including the 300 so leased to complainants; that although the defendant company had full notice of complainants' contract, and the contract of the defendant company was subsequent and subject to the contract with complainants, McLin, commissioner, would deliver all of said convicts to defendant company in accordance with its contract unless enjoined by the court; that McLin, commissioner, refused in any manner to recognize the contract with complainants as an existing contract, and refused to retain such possession and control of said 300 convicts as to be able to deliver said convicts to complainants under the terms of their contract, and had declared his intention not to deliver said convicts, or any of them, to complainants at the time specified in and by the terms of said contract, although it is his duty, under the statutes of the state, to retain such possession and control of said 300 convicts, so as to be able to deliver them to complainants in accordance with the terms of the contract so made with them.

It was further alleged that said contract and bond contained and embraced all the covenants and provisions required by the laws of Florida to be included in said contract and bond; that such contract was a perfect contract, and such bond a perfect bond, and that both were perfectly executed; that neither said board, nor any member thereof, ever made any objection to the substance, execution, or sufficiency of said bond, and that it was legally impossible to make any such objection or any valid objection to said bond; that more than two weeks after the execution and delivery of said contract and bond, and the payment of said sum of $3,000, complainants received by mail from said McLin, commissioner, a copy of a paper writing to the following effect: 'Copy of Order of Board of State Institutions, March 2, 1901. Hon. B. E. McLin, commissioner of agriculture, submitted to the board certain contracts he had entered into with different parties for the hire of state convicts for four years, beginning January 1, 1902; and upon consideration it is ordered that the contracts be, and are hereby, severally disapproved and rejected, and it is further ordered that this order be indorsed on each of said contracts by the secretary of this board;' that the word 'contracts,' in said writing contained, included, and was intended by the said board to include, said contract made and executed with complainants; that under and by virtue of the pretended authority of said writing, said McLin, commissioner, arbitrarily, willfully, and without any good reason whatever, immediately after the date thereof, announced his intention to repudiate and refuse to perform said contract, to the great wrong and injury of complainants; that said writing, to wit, the order of said board, was a willful, arbitrary, and capricious act, and not founded upon any reason whatever; that, a few days after the date of said writing, complainants notified said board and McLin, commissioner, in writing, that the contract with complainants was a valid contract, obligatory upon all parties thereto, and that complainants would insist upon and demand performance of said contract by the said McLin, commissioner, and the said board; that complainants were informed and believed that the contract so made with the defendant company contains a provision, condition, reservation, and exception whereby the lessee in said contract takes and holds all its rights thereunder subject to all the rights and interests of complainants under their contract.

The bill also alleged that the present number of convicts in the state prison was about 800, and would on January 1, 1902 exceed 600; that by the terms of the contract with complainants it was the duty of McLin, commissioner, to prescribe a plan and basis for a fair and equitable division of the state convicts, with the approval of the board, and the duty of the board under such contract to approve the same; that it was necessary that such plan and basis should be prescribed without delay, in order that complainants might make provision for the reception, custody, care, maintenance, employment, and disposition of said convicts; that complainants were then in possession, and would on January 1, 1902, have possession, of about 300 convicts, under contracts made by the commissioner of agriculture,...