Carter v. State

• Decision Date: 31 December 1895
• Citation: 65 N.W. 422,8 S.D. 153
• Parties: CARTER v. STATE.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

65 N.W. 422

8 S.D. 153

CARTER v. STATE.

Supreme Court of South Dakota

December 31, 1895

Syllabus by the Court.

A contract made with the state to do the class of printing specified therein, under the provisions of chapter 99, Laws 1891, which does not contain any stipulation prohibiting its assignment, may be assigned.

Action by Arthur L. Carter, assignee of the Free Press Company and of William G. Yates, against the state of South Dakota. Demurrer to first cause of action overruled, and sustained as to second cause of action.

Carter & Donahue, for plaintiff. Coe I. Crawford, Atty. Gen., for the State.

CORSON P. J.

This is an original action, brought by the plaintiff, as assignee against the state, pursuant to the provisions of chapter 1, Laws 1890, to recover damages for the alleged breach of two contracts for printing, entered into by the secretary of state as ex officio commissioner of public printing. The complaint contains two causes of action, to each of which the state, by its attorney general, has interposed a demurrer on the ground that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The only question therefore, before us for decision is as to the sufficiency of the complaint.

For the first cause of action it is alleged that plaintiff's assignor was and is a corporation organized under the laws of this state; that on the 1st day of June, 1892, the then secretary of state and ex officio commissioner of public printing, in accordance with the provisions of chapter 99, Laws 1891, advertised for proposals for the printing of the reports of the state officers and other official documents therein designated for a period of one year; that the Free Press Company, by this plaintiff, as its business manager made proposals for such printing, and, being the lowest bidder, was awarded the contract therefor that a contract was duly executed by the said commissioner of public printing and the said Free Press Company for said printing, and to secure the faithful performance of said contract on its part the said Free Press Company executed a bond with good and sufficient sureties as required by law; that subsequently the said Free Press Company assigned said contract to the plaintiff herein, who thereupon proceeded to secure a large amount of type, paper, and other material necessary for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of said contract. It is further alleged that the plaintiff has in all things complied with the terms of the contract stipulated to be performed by the said Free Press Company, and has printed all reports and documents as required by the said commissioner of public printing, of the class designated in said contract, except the report of the state auditor, the report of the inspector of mines, and the report of the secretary of the pharmaceutical association, copies of which were not furnished the plaintiff, but were by said officers caused to be printed by other parties, by reason of which the plaintiff was deprived of said printing, and suffered damage thereby in the sum of $774.40.

The second cause of action is similar to the first, except that the contract is alleged to have been made with one William G. Yates, and was for printing "circulars, blanks, letter heads, note heads, envelopes, list of standing committees, roll calls, resolutions, blanks, blank reports of committees, names of members of legislature, labels for desks, signs for committees, cards and blanks of all kinds for the use of the state officers and the legislature of the state of South Dakota for the period of one year from July 1, A. D. 1892, including incidental printing for the legislature in said year; and to furnish the material and perform the labor in producing the same."

The complaint further alleges: "That said Yates, as said plaintiff is informed and believes, did all the printing for the said state officials under his said contract that he was furnished copy or orders for, and was ready and willing to do all that his contract called for for said officials, but that there was a large amount of printing to be done for said officials which said Yates was entitled to do under his contract, and was ready and anxious to do the same, to wit." Here follows a specification of the amounts of printing that he, plaintiff, claims was to be done for the different state officials, amounting to the sum of $4,650. The plaintiff further alleges: "That said Yates, as said plaintiff is informed and believes, notified said Ringsrud, and also those state officials above named, that he was ready to do all their printing that his contract called for, and requested that he be furnished with their copy or orders for the same, but they failed to furnish him with said copy or orders; wherefore the said Yates was damaged in the sum of $4,650, being the amount to which he was entitled under his said contract with said defendant." The complaint further alleges that said Yates duly presented his claim to the state auditor for allowance, and that he refused to allow the same, and that prior to the commencement of this action the said Yates duly assigned his said claim to this plaintiff. The plaintiff concludes by demanding judgment for the sum of $5,424.40, the total amount of damages alleged to have been sustained by the breach of the contracts above set forth.

The learned attorney general contends in support of his demurrer to the first cause of action: "That the right of the Free Press Company, under its contract, to print the reports of the state auditor, the inspector of mines, and the State Pharmaceutical Association, could not be assigned to Arthur L. Carter, the plaintiff herein. The right was a personal one, belonging alone to the Free Press Company. The proposal and specifications came from the Free Press Company, and were...