Knight v. Barnes
| Decision Date | 31 May 1898 |
| Citation | 7 N.D. 591,75 N.W. 904 |
| Parties | KNIGHT et al. v. BARNES et al., County Commissioners. |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
1. Construing section 1807, Rev. Codes, which reads, “All county printing shall be done in the state, and if practicable in the county ordering the same,” held, that the words “all county printing” include, in addition to legal notices published by or in behalf of the county, all supplies of printed matter necessarily used by county officials in discharging their official duties.
2. Held, further, that the purpose of said section is to prohibit counties from letting contracts to print and furnish county supplies of printed matter to parties who will not perform the work within the state. Hence it is held that mandamus will not lie to compel the county commissioners to recognize and consider a bid for county printing made by parties who will do the work of printing outside the limits of the state if awarded the contract for which the bid is made.
3. Held, further, that said section is not repugnant to section 8 of article 1 of the federal constitution, regulating commerce among the states, for the reason that a sovereign state, like an individual, may lawfully elect not to purchase its necessary supplies from those who do not manufacture or produce the same within the state so purchasing the same.
4. Held, further, that the expediency of such a statute is a consideration outside of judicial cognizance, and one lying wholly within the domain of legislative discretion.
5. Rev. Codes, § 1807 (), held not to be repugnant to section 61 of article 2 of the state constitution, providing “that no bill shall embrace more than one subject,” etc.
6. The rule that a demurrer searches the record, and relates back to the first defective pleading, followed and applied to the pleadings herein; and held, that a demurrer to the answer required the court below to search the complaint, and, because the complaint was demurrable, it was proper to dismiss the application for the writ.
7. Held, that the order appealed from was properly made, and will not be reversed despite the facts that the reasons given by the district court for the order are untenable in the law.
8. Held, further, that section 1807, Rev. Codes, does not discriminate either against nonresidents or those whose places of business are situated in another state. The sole requirement of the section is that county printing shall be done within the state.
Appeal from district court, Cass county; Charles A. Pollock, Judge.
Application for writ of mandamus by S. E. Knight and H. Crawford, doing business as the Tribune Printing & Binding Company, against O. G. Barnes and others, as board of county commissioners of Cass county. Application dismissed, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.J. W. Tilly, for appellants. Fred B. Morrill, State's Atty., for respondents.
In this proceeding, the plaintiffs applied to the district court for a peremptory writ of mandamus, commanding the defendants, who are the commissioners of Cass county, to recognize and consider a certain bid for county supplies, which was made by the plaintiffs in response to a published proposal for bids theretofore made by the defendants. Said proposal for bids, so far as the same is material, was as follows: Responding to this published notice, the plaintiffs filed with the county auditor their bid, which is entitled “Bid of Tribune Printing and Binding Company,” and which embraces a list of articles which are generally known as county records and office supplies of printed matter, including blank records, printed records, assessor's books, tax lists, etc. These articles are chiefly, if not wholly, of a kind such as are produced in printing offices, and can only be made by the use of printing machinery. No point is made either in the record, or in the arguments of counsel, to the effect that the bid of the plaintiffs embraces any article which is not the product of the printer's art. The plaintiffs' bid was neither considered nor recognized by the defendants, whereupon the plaintiffs made applicationfor the writ of mandamus. The affidavit, which is the basis of the appeal, states that said firm of S. F. Knight and H. Crawford are co-partners, as the Tribune Printing & Binding Company, and have their principal place of business in Minneapolis, state of Minnesota; that their business is that of making and selling legal blanks, blank books, and other county supplies and stationery, and making contracts with counties to furnish and sell them such blanks, blank books, stationery, and supplies as they may require under the law. The affidavit further alleged, in substance, that the defendants, pursuant to the requirement contained in section 1925 of the Revised Codes, published said proposal for bids for county supplies, and that, in response thereto, the plaintiffs, in due time and in the proper manner, made and filed its said bid with the county auditor for said county, and that “on the 5th day of May, 1898, they proceeded to, and did, open and consider certain bids, made and filed by other persons and firms, for the furnishing of said articles, goods, and supplies named in said notice, but refused to recognize and consider complainants' (the plaintiffs herein) bid, although affiant then and there openly demanded of said commissioners that they recognize and consider his firm's bid; that affiant verily believes that his firm's bid was and is the lowest bid filed, and affiant says that his said firm is wholly responsible, and could and would give to said Cass county a good and sufficient bond to fulfill the contract if let to them on their bid”; and that plaintiffs have complied with all the requirements of the law in making and filing said bid. Upon the return of an order to show cause, which order was based on said affidavit, the defendants filed their answer to said affidavit, which answer, among other things, stated as follows: “That said complainants have their principal place of business in the city of Minneapolis and state of Minnesota, and said S. F. Knight so stated to these defendants, the board of county commissioners, at the time of the opening of said bids, that if said bid of complainants was accepted, and the contract for the work specified therein was awarded to complainants, said work would be done outside of the state of North Dakota, and not within the state of North Dakota; that the bid as called for and the contract to be awarded under said bid is for county printing, and cannot, under the laws of this state, to wit, under section 1807 of the Revised Codes of 1895, be done out of the state of North Dakota; that for that reason said bid was rejected and refused to be considered by defendants as a board of county commissioners, and the certified check attached to said bid was returned to complainants, and all other bids as called for under the notice were rejected; that the bid of the complainants was rejected by defendants, as county commissioners of Cass county, for the sole and only reason that the said bid did not comply with the requirements of the notice, in that the complainants are not within the state, and the contract could not, under the law of the state, be awarded to complainants, as said contract would be for county printing for the ensuing year, and, if the contract was awarded to complainants under their bid, the county printing would not be done within the state of North Dakota.” Plaintiffs interposed a demurrer to this answer, upon the ground that the same does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense. After hearing counsel upon the issues raised by the demurrer, the trial court ordered “that the demurrer be, and the same is, overruled; and said plaintiffs' application for a writ of mandamus herein, directing defendants to recognize and consider plaintiffs' said bid, is refused and denied, and their application dismissed, on the ground that plaintiffs, being nonresidents of this state, and their principal place of business being in the state of...
To continue reading
Request your trial