Holden v. City of Alton
| Citation | 53 N.E. 556,179 Ill. 318 |
| Parties | HOLDEN v. CITY OF ALTON et al. |
| Decision Date | 17 April 1899 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Madison county; William Hartzell, Judge.
Bill by Charles Holden against the city of Alton and another. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainant appeals. Reversed.
Levi Davis, for appellant.
Henry S. Baker, Corp. Counsel, for appellees.
Charles Holden filed his bill in this case in the circuit court of Madison county against the city of Alton and the Sentinel-Democrat Printing Company, praying for an injunction restraining said defendants from carrying out a contract for the printing of bonds by said company for said city, and restraining the city from paying any money to said company, or any person or corporation other than complainant, on account of printing the said bonds under such contract. The defendants demurred to the bill for want of equity. The demurrer was sustained, and the bill dismissed, and complainant appealed.
The facts, as admitted by the demurrer, are as follows: Complainant is the owner of real and personal estate in the city of Alton, and is, and for many years has been, a taxpayer in said city. In pursuance of paragraph 94 of section 1 of article 5 of the general act for the incorporation of cities and villages, under which the city of Alton is incorporated, an ordinance had been passed and was in force in said city providing that printing of all kinds, stationery, and blanks, and the supplies needed for the use of the city, should be let by contract to the lowest bidder, unless the amount of the contract should be less than $10. On July 18, 1898, the city comptroller advertised for sealed proposals for the printing of 92 bonds, to be issued by the city for State street paving, according to a sample to be obtained at the office of the corporation counsel; also two abstracts of record and two briefs for the appellate court, to be printed according to the rules of that court, at a price per page to be stated by the bidders. At the appointed time three sealed proposals were received by the comptroller, one of which was made by complainant. His did was the lowest, and he offered to print the bonds for $18.25 and the abstracts and briefs for 49 cents per page. The bid of the Sentinel-Democrat Printing Company was next higher, and was $23.85 for the bonds, 57 cents per page for abstracts, and 49 cents per page for briefs. The city council had before that time received and accepted a petition of a Typographical Union asking the council to prohibit the letting of any contract for city printing to, or having any city printing done in, any office which could not furnish the label of said union, and the council had directed an ordinance drawn as prayed for in the petition. The ordinance had been prepared and introduced, and laid over, under the rules of the council, until the next meeting, when final action upon it would be taken. Complainant, who was the lowest bidder, was not a member of the Typographical Union, did not employ union labor, and could not show the union label, while the Sentinel-Democrat Printing Company did employ union labor and could furnish the union label. The comptroller and printing committee of the city council accepted complainant's bid for the abstracts and briefs for the sole reason that they were required to be printed without delay, but postponed action on the bids for the bonds solely in anticipation of the passage of this ordinance, under which they might reject complainant's bid. At the next meeting of the city council, August 9, 1898, the ordinance was passed, providing as follows: ‘That hereafter all city printing shall be awarded and let only to such printing houses or shops as employ union labor or can show the union label, and the city comptroller and the committee on printing are hereby directed and instructed to carry this out.’ After passing the ordinance, the council took up the bids, and accepted the bid of the Sentinel-Democrat Printing Company for the sole and only reason that said company employed union labor and could satisfy the requirements of the ordinance. The ordinance was approved the next day by the mayor. Complainant, whose bid was the lowest, is a printer and stationer in the city of Alton, and is an experienced, practical, and responsible printer, fully qualified to comply with his bid. When the bill was filed, nothing had been done towards printing the bonds or carrying out the contract.
In his character as a taxpayer of the city of Alton, complainant had a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shaw v. The City Council of Marshalltown
... ... See, also, ... Adams v. Brenan, 177 Ill. 194 (52 N.E. 314, 42 L. R ... [104 N.W. 1130] ... A. 718, 69 Am. St. Rep. 222), and Holden v. Alton, ... 179 Ill. 318 (53 N.E. 556); Noel v. People, 187 Ill ... 587 (58 N.E. 616, 52 L. R. A. 287, 79 Am. St. Rep. 238). In ... the case ... ...
-
Illinois Power & Light Corp. v. City of Centralia, Ill.
...complied with an unconstitutional act of Congress and the codes promulgated in pursuance of such invalid act. In Holden v. City of Alton et al., 179 Ill. 318, 53 N. E. 556, 557, speaking of an ordinance which required that the person with whom a city might contract should be a member of a c......
-
Ex parte House v. Mayes
...be employed are void. Atlanta v. Stein, 111 Ga. 789; Marshall Co. v. Nashville, 109 Tenn. 495; Adams v. Brennan, 177 Ill. 194; Holden v. Alton, 179 Ill. 318; v. People, 188 Ill. 206; State ex rel. v. Toole, 26 Mont. 22; Lewis v. Board of Education, 139 Mich. 306; People ex rel. v. Coler, 16......
-
Polyvend, Inc. v. Puckorius
...thus impel them to compete at the bidding." (Dement v. Rokker (1888), 126 Ill. 174, 196, 19 N.E. 33, 41. Accord, Holden v. City of Alton (1899), 179 Ill. 318, 324, 53 N.E. 556, and Callaghan & Co. v. Smith (1922), 304 Ill. 532, 540-41, 136 N.E. 748.) The opportunity to bid on a government c......