Dement v. Rokker
| Decision Date | 14 November 1888 |
| Parties | DEMENT et al. v. ROKKER et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to circuit court, Sangamon county; J. A. CREIGHTON, Judge.
Petition for mandamus, by H. W. Rokker and others, of the firm of H. W. Rokker & Co., against Henry D. Dement and others, commissioners of public contracts, and Charles P. Swigert, auditor of public accounts, requiring the commissioners to certify and the auditor to issue a warrant for an account of plaintiffs for public printing. Demurrer to answer sustained, and overruled as to petition, and defendants bring error.George Hunt, Atty. Gen., for appellants.
Gross & Broadwell, for appellees.
This was a proceeding in mandamus in the circuit court of Sangamon county, upon the petition of Henry W. Rokker, Thomas Rees, and Charles T. Strattan, partners under the firm name of H. W. Rokker & Co., against Henry D. Dement, Charles P. Swigert, John R. Tanner, and George Hunt, commissioners of state contracts, and Charles P. Swigert, as auditor of public accounts. It is, in substance, alleged in the petition ‘that on the 13th day of September, 1886, the firm of H. W. Rokker & Co., then composed of the petitioners and one Clarence H. Davenport, entered into contract with the people of the state of Illinois, by the commissioners of state contracts, under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Illinois, to-wit, ‘An act to revise the law in relation to state contracts,’ approved March 31, 1874, in force July 1, 1874, and the several acts amendatory thereof, for the public printing of the state of Illinois, for the two years from October 1, 1886, to September 30, 1888, designated by the laws of Illinois as printing of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth classes, but which said contracts were by said commissioners of state contracts required to be dated as of the 7th day of September, 1886,-a certified copy of which said contracts for classes one, two, and six are here exhibited, and made part of this petition. They further show that after the execution and filing of said contracts, to-wit, on September 23, 1886, one of said partners, to-wit, Clarence H. Davenport, sold and assigned all his interest in each of said contracts to his copartner, Henry W. Rokker, of which sale and assignment said commissioners of state contracts then and there had notice; that upon the said execution of said contracts for said six classes of printing said firm of H. W. Rokker & Co. executed and filed with the secretary of state of Illinois, as required by law, their obligations, with sufficient surety, approved by the governor, for the faithful performance of all said contracts, the amount of said bonds aggregating $27,000,-certified copies of which said bonds are here exhibited, and made part hereof. They further show that the petitioners entered upon the execution and performance of said printing contracts, to-wit, on October 1, 1886, and from thence hitherto, and until the filing of this petition, have fully and faithfully executed and performed all and singular the agreements and undertakings on their part undertaken and agreed in said printing contracts, and in accordance with the laws of the state of Illinois in relation thereto; that between the 12th day of January, 1887, and the 21st day of April, 1887, there were delivered to the petitioners, through the secretary of state, as required by law, 1,194 several orders for public printing of the first class, in and by which said orders petitioners were required under the law and their said contract for said first class of printing to execute and perform, aggregating in amount, according to the conditions of said contract, the sum of $6,916.20; that petitioners did execute and perform the work specified in said several orders according to law and their said contract, and the work so executed at the several dates thereof was by petitioners delivered to the secretary of state at the state capitol, and accepted by him, and the same was appropriated, used, and consumed by the various state departments and agencies,-a detailed and itemized statement and account of which orders, with their several dates, numbers, and amounts, is here exhibited, and made part hereof; that between the 14th day of October, 1886, and April 22, 1887, there were delivered to petitioners through the secretary of state, as required by law, 675 several orders for public printing of the sixth class, in and by which said orders petitioners were required under the law and their said contract for said sixth class of printing, to execute and perform, aggregating in amount, according to the conditions of said contract, the sum of $8,443.35; that petitioners did execute and perform the work specified in said several orders according to law and their said contract, and the work so executed at the several dates thereof was by petitioners delivered to the secretary of state at the state capitol, and the same was accepted by him, and appropriated, used, and consumed by the various state departments and agencies,-a detailed and itemized statement and account of which orders, with their several dates, numbers, and amounts, is here exhibited, and made part hereof; that between December 20, 1886, and April 14, 1887, there were by the secretary of state, as required by law, delivered to petitioners 46 several orders for public printing of the second class, in and by which said orders petitioners were required under the law and their said contract for the second class of printing to execute and perform, aggregating in amount, according to the conditions of said contract, the sum of $17,362.56; that petitioners did execute and perform the work specified in said several orders according to law and their said contract, and the work so executed at the several dates thereof was by petitioners delivered to the secretary of state at the state capitol, and the same was accepted by him, and appropriated, used, and consumed by the various state departments and agencies,-a detailed and itemized statement and account of which orders and work, with their several dates, numbers, and amounts, is here exhibited, and made part hereof. They further show that said several amounts for the work executed and performed and accepted under said contracts for public printing of first class amounted to $6,916.20, second class amounted to $17,362.56, sixth class amounted to $8,443.35, aggregating the sum of $32,722.11; but that prior to May 1, 1887, said commissioners of state contracts had caused to be certified to the anditor, and so paid on account thereof, the sum of $24,000; leaving unpaid the sum of $8,722.11. They further show that on May 7, 1887, the petitioners presented the detailed itemized statement and accounts of the orders for public printing, and by petitioners executed and performed, heretofore herein referred to and exhibited, to the secretary of state, who then required the printer expert of the state of Illinois to examine and compare the same with petitioners' said contracts, and the vouchers and orders relating thereto, as required by law; that said statements and accounts were then received by said printer expert, and the same were by him examined and compared as required by law, and the same, being found correct, were by said printer expert so certified to said commissioners of state contracts, and which original certificate is here exhibited, viz.:
“The foregoing aggregate charges in classes 1, 2, and 6 agree with my books, and are correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Shevlin-Carpenter Company
... ... of Cl. 144; ... State v. Bevers, 86 N.C. 588; McCaslin v ... State, 99 Ind. 428; State v. Bank of State, 45 ... Mo. 528; Dement v. Rokker, 126 Ill. 174, 19 N.E. 33 ... The permit was at most an executory contract of sale. But ... even if the permit were as safe from attack ... ...
-
Polyvend, Inc. v. Puckorius
...but no less important, is to permit anyone, who is responsible and qualified, to compete for a contract. (See Dement v. Rokker (1888), 126 Ill. 174, 194-97, 19 N.E. 33.) In the absence of statute, the State, of course, "could let contracts without competitive bidding." (Inskip v. Board of T......
-
State ex rel. Averill v. Smith
... ... 1007; ... Spitcaufsky v. Highway Comm., 349 Mo. 117, 159 ... S.W.2d 647; Sager v. Highway Comm., 349 Mo. 341, 160 ... S.W.2d 757; Dement v. Rokker, 126 Ill. 174; ... Scott v. St. Louis County, 341 Mo. 1084, 111 S.W.2d ... 186; Carter-Waters Corp. v. Buchanan County, 129 ... S.W.2d ... ...
- People v. Bradford