J.B. Lyon Co. v. Morris
| Citation | 261 N.Y. 497,185 N.E. 711 |
| Parties | J. B. LYON CO. v. MORRIS, Superintendent of Division of Standards, et al. |
| Decision Date | 25 April 1933 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Application of the J. B. Lyon Company against Frank L. Morris, Superintendent of the Division of Standards and Purchase of the State of New York, and another, for peremptory mandamus requiring defendants to deliver lists, etc., necessary to print election supplies, to petitioner. From an order of the Appellate Division (237 App. Div. 304, 261 N. Y. S. 285), reversing as a matter of law an order of the Special Term (144 Misc. 9, 258 N. Y. S. 7), which granted the motion for a peremptory mandamus, and dismissing the proceeding, petitioner appeals.
Appeal dismissed.
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third department.
Rollin B. Sanford, of Albany, for appellant.
John J. Bennett, Jr., Atty. Gen. , for respondents.
The fundamental question which arose in this proceeding was whether it was the clear legal duty of the Superintendent of the Division of Standards and Purchase and the Secretary of State to deliver to the petitioner, J. B. Lyon Company, which held the general contract for state printing for the year July 1, 1931, to June 30, 1932, the copy of material from which it could print the election supplies for the Department of State for the election 1932.
The state election printing for the year 1932 was done under a separate contract, let independently of the general contract, according to the custom prevailing from the year 1922 to 1931. J. B. Lyon Company had been a competitive bidder for such contracts, and a purchaser thereof from other bidders when they had received the award. The Appellate Division has held that under a practical interpretation of petitioner's contract it was not entitled to the election printing.
As the work of election printing of 1932 has already been done, obviously mandamus as prayed for by the petitioner is no longer an appropriate remedy. If the petitioner's contract has been broken by the State, the proper remedy is by a claim to recover damages. The abstract question of the right of J. B. Lyon Company to do the election printing under a contract which itself expires on June 30, 1932, is not of such general interest or importance as to call for a departure from the practice not to decide questions which have become academic or abstract by lapse of time.
The question of law...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hearst Corp. v. Clyne
...a rule of future conduct is imperative and manifest will justify a departure from our general practice" (Matter of Lyon Co. v. Morris, 261 N.Y. 497, 499, 185 N.E. at 111); question of "importance and interest and because of the likeliness that they will recur" (Matter of Jones v. Berman, 37......
-
Gray v. Canisius College of Buffalo
...that article 78 proceedings in the nature of mandamus will not lie to enforce private rights based on contracts (Matter of Lyon Co. v. Morris, 261 N.Y. 497, 185 N.E. 711; Matter of Corbeau Constr. Corp. v. Board of Educ., Union Free School Dist. No. 9, 32 A.D.2d 958, 302 N.Y.S.2d 940).4 In ......
-
Cluett, Peabody & Co. v. J.W. Mays, Inc.
...However, an exception is made where questions of importance are presented, which are likely to arise with frequency. Lyon Co. v. Morris, 261 N.Y. 497, 499, 185 N.E. 711; Glenram Wine & Liquor Corp. v. O'Connell, 295 N.Y. 336, 340, 67 N.E.2d 570, 571; Rosenbluth v. Finkelstein, 300 N.Y. 402,......
-
Uniformed Firefighters Ass'n, Local 94, IAFF, AFL-CIO v. Beekman
...Schoeck, supra, 294 N.Y. 559, 63 N.E.2d 104. Mandamus is not to be utilized when there are other available remedies. Matter of Lyon Co. v. Morris, 261 N.Y. 497, 185 N.E. 711; Coombs v. Edwards, 280 N.Y. 361, 364, 21 N.E.2d 353; Corbeau Const. Corp. v. Board of Education, 32 A.D.2d 958, 302 ......