Leader Printing Co. v. Lowry
Citation | 9 Okla. 89,1899 OK 121,59 P. 242 |
Parties | LEADER PRINTING CO. v. ROBERT LOWRY et al |
Decision Date | 07 November 1899 |
Court | Supreme Court of Oklahoma |
¶0 1. PRINTING--Assignment of Contract. A contract entered into by the governor of Oklahoma with a private partnership, under the provisions of section 1, art. 1, ch. 29, Sess. Laws Oklahoma, 1897, is an assignable contract, and a corporation to whom such contract has been assigned may maintain an action to compel, by mandamus, the officers of one of the territorial colleges to furnish it with the copy for the printing for such college. Such a contract does not involve such an element of confidence or trust as will render it non- assignable.
2. SAME--Bond--Sureties--Liability of. The sureties on a bond given as required by section 2, art. 1, ch. 29,--the act referred to above, for the faithful performance of the contract provided for in section 1 of said act, are not discharged by an assignment of the contract. They remain liable for the performance of the contract after its assignment the same as before.
3. PLEADING--Corporate Existence Presumed--Demurrer--Plea in Abatement. It is not necessary for a plaintiff corporation, in bringing a suit, to allege that it is a corporation. Its legal capacity to sue will be presumed in law until the contrary is made to appear; and, unless it affirmatively appears from the face of the petition that the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue, such question cannot be raised by a demurrer. The point that plaintiff is not a corporation should be rased by a special plea in the nature of a plea in abatement. If it is not so raised before pleading to the merits, the question is waived. By pleading to the merits, a defendant admits plaintiff's capacity to maintain the action.
Error from the District Court of Payne County; before Jno. H. Burford, District Judge.
Dale & Bierer, for plaintiff in error.
Harper S. Cunningham, Attorney General, and Fred M. Elkin, for defendants in error.
Action by the Leader Printing company against Robert A. Lowry and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.
¶1 On April 3, 1897, the governor of Oklahoma entered into a written contract with Roy V. Hoffman and William Blincoe, partners doing business under the firm name and style of Hoffman & Blincoe, under the provisions of article 1, ch. 29, Sess. Laws Oklahoma, 1897, for the territorial printing for the period of two years from said date. The section referred to is as follows:
¶2 At the time of the execution of this contract Hoffman & Blincoe executed and delivered to the Territory a bond as required by section 2, ch. 29, (Sess. Laws 1897,) which section reads:
¶3 The bond executed by Hoffman & Blincoe was duly approved by the governor, and filed with the proper officer, and they were given the territorial printing. Some time later they assigned this contract to the Leader Printing company, and the printing was given to it for a considerable time, but finally defendants refused to furnish copies to plaintiff to do the printing for the Agricultural and Mechanical college of Oklahoma. The Leader Printing company, plaintiff herein, then brought this suit, praying that defendants be enjoined from giving the printing for the college to any one other than the plaintiff, and also praying that they be compelled, by mandamus, to deliver the copy for printing for the college to plaintiff. An alternative writ of mandamus and restraining order were issued by the district judge. The attorney general of Oklahoma and Mr. Fred M. Elkin, on behalf of the defendants, filed a motion to quash the alternative writ. On the hearing of this motion the district court quashed the alternative writ of mandamus, and set aside the restraining order; from which ruling the plaintiff appeals to this court, praying a reversal of the judgment of the court below.
¶4 The questions presented in this case have never been before this court. Therefore we have searched the authorities with care in the hope that we might find them definitely settled by other courts. But, notwithstanding there are many cases which bear upon the first two questions considered, we have only found one or two which decide the particular questions involved herein. These we will refer to later in this opinion.
¶5 It is contended by the defendants that the contract entered into between the governor and Hoffman & Blincoe was a personal contract, and could not be by them assigned to the Leader Printing company, except with the knowledge, consent, and approval of the governor; and that plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendants,--citing many authorities in support of their contention. These authorities, however, only go to the extent of holding that contracts conferring rights coupled with liabilities, or which are founded upon relations of personal confidence and trust, or contemplate a moral or mental worth, or peculiar skill or ability of the party contracted with, can be assigned only by agreement of all parties thereto. We entertain no doubt that a contract which involves these elements--that is, where they are the controlling elements of the contract--cannot be assigned without the consent of all of the parties; but when this is given, and the bond for its faithful performance surrendered,--except, possibly, under some peculiar circumstances,--it really amounts to a new contract. Still, as to whether the consent by all of the parties to the assignment of a contract amounts to a new contract, to a very great extent depends upon the circumstances of each case. The defendants contend that the statute under which the governor made the contract vests a discretion in him; that it directs him to contract with some "responsible" person; that he alone, under the statute, can select this person; and that the contract is founded upon relations of confidence and trust.
¶6 This contention is not sustained by the authorities. It cannot, from the contract, or circumstances surrounding the same, be said that the governor expected Hoffman & Blincoe to personally set the type and do the printing. There is nothing in the statutes or the language of the contract which excludes the idea of this work being performed by others, and, if there is not, and the parties can do the work by agents, then they can assign the contract as a whole to any one else.
¶7 The case of Devlin v. Mayor, etc., 63 N.Y. 8, is in point and strongly supports this view. The court in that case had before it the question of the assignability of a contract made by the city of New York for cleaning streets. In discussing this case the court said:
¶8 In Carter v. State, 8 S.D. 153, 65 N.W. 422, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Kaufman
......v. Cleveland Vitrified Brick Co., see note 17, supra; Leader Printing Co. v. Lowry, 1899 OK 121, ¶ ___, 9 Okla. 89, 59 P. 242. . 19. ......
-
State Ex Rel v. Huston
......Dec. 602; Rice v. Austin, 19 Minn. 103, 18 Am. Rep. 330, Gil. 74; Vicksburg & M. R. Co. v. Lowry, 61 Miss. 102, 48 Am. Rep. 76; State ex rel. Robb v. Stone, 120 Mo. 428, 23 L. R. A. 194, 41 Am. ...738, 6 L. Ed. 204; Wilson v. Lambert, 168 U.S. 612; Leader Printing Co. v. Lowry, 9 Okla. 89, 59 P. 242; State v. Metschan, 46 P. 791; State v. Elliott, 11 ......
-
Minnetonka Oil Co. v. Cleveland Vitrified Brick Co.
......Railroad Co., 80 F. 78; Horst v. Roehm, 84 F. 565; Larne v. Goezinger (Cal.) 24 P. 42; Leader Printing Co. v. Lowery, 9 Okla. 89. WILLIAMS, J. ¶1 The ......
-
Fegtly v. Village Blacksmith Mining Co.
......994; 5 Ency. P. & P.,. pp. 70, 71; note to Miller v. Pine Mining Co., 35. Am. St. 289; Leader Printing Co. v. Lowry, 9 Okla. 89, 59 P. 242; Los Angeles Ry. Co. v. Davis, 146. Cal. 179, 79 P. ......