McConnell v. Arkansas Brick & Manufacturing Co.

• Decision Date: 17 May 1902
• Citation: 69 S.W. 559,70 Ark. 568
• Parties: MCCONNELL v. ARKANSAS BRICK & MANUFACTURING COMPANY
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

69 S.W. 559

70 Ark. 568

MCCONNELL v. ARKANSAS BRICK & MANUFACTURING COMPANY

Supreme Court of Arkansas

May 17, 1902

Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court, THOMAS B. MARTIN, Chancellor.

Affirmed.

Decree affirmed.

Morris M. Cohn, T. H. Humphrey and Kirby & Carter, for appellantsGeorge W. Murphy, Attorney General, of counsel.

The decree is too vague and ambiguous to be enforceable.123 U.S 443;105 F. 459;117 U.S. 52, 71;31 S.E. 191, 192.An injunction is not grantable where it could not be enforced.3 Pom. Eq. Jur. §§ 1341, 1405;High, Inj. § 731;96 Ill. 503, 512;31 Mich. 43, 52;2 Ch. Cont. 1467;33 Mich 331;31 Mich. 43, 52;38 Ohio St. 24.Certiorari and not injunction was the proper remedy, if any remedy existed at all.Sand & H. Dig., § 1125;62 Ark. 196, 201;1 Saxt 282;25 N.J.Eq. (10 C. E. Gr.), 295;77 Am. Dec. 272;23 Cal 302;16 Cal. 208;5 Barb. 43;67 Me. 429;70 Me. 317; 26 Vroom, 495;S. C.27 A. 803;id. 807;S. C. 26 Vroom, 503;34 Wis. 497.A suit cannot be instituted against an officer merely to evade the rule forbidding suits against the state.Mech. Pub. Off. § 836;4 Wall. 475; 92 U.S. 531;109 U.S. 446;123 U.S. 443, 498-502.The suit was not maintainable because it was, in effect, a suit against the state.2 Ark. 504;46 Ga. 350, 359; 31 S.E. 191, 192;109 U.S. 453;106 U.S. 196;123 U.S. 443, 487;106 U.S. 244, 245;114 U.S. 311;117 U.S. 52;92 U.S. 531;108 U.S. 76;107 U.S. 711; 3 Wood, 426;117 U.S. 71, 59;123 U.S. 488;109 U.S. 446;123 U.S. 507, 508;140 U.S. 18;105 F. 459;31 S.E. 191;96 Ill. 503;78 Ia. 97;S. C.42 N.W. 593;42 N.W. 594;1 Ia. 201;13 Barb. 438;76 Va. 456;33 La.Ann. 504;22 Tex. 31.The state, being directly interested in the contract and a party to it, was a necessary party to the suit.20 Ark. 615;2 Ch. Cont. 1442;Pom. Sec. Perf. § 482;32 Ark. 297;34 Ark. 291;41 Ark. 270;123 U.S. 489.Cf.96 Ill. 510, 512.The alleged contracts are too indefinite and vague to be enforceable by a court of equity.63 Ark. 100, 105;3 Ark. 18, 57;60 Ark. 487;28 Cal. 635;46 Pa.St. 334;7 C. E. Gr. 85;27 Cal. 451;31 Mich. 43, 52;32 Mich. 64;33 Mich. 331;17 S. &R. 39;13 S. &R. 45;38 Ohio St. 24, 31;96 Ill. 503, 507;96 Ill. 507, 512.The court will take judicial notice of the number of convicts in the penitentiary.4 Ark. 302, 367;37 Ark. 574, 577, 578;152 U.S. 211;72 F. 46;72 Me. 104;6 Mont. 379; 12 P. 851; 9 N.M. 611;S. C.58 P. 398;39 F. 66;61 N.Y.S. 263;137 U.S. 202, 216.Cf.27 Ark. 266, 278;33 Ark. 17;40 Ark. 200;4 Ark. 302, 367.The alleged contracts are unreasonable, and the plaintiff below is in no position to invoke relief.The allegation of the complaint as to good faith and fairness are not admitted by the demurrer.51 Mich. 446;102 Ill. 655;55 N.H. 36;3 So. 80;72 Ga. 423;21 Wall. 430;30 Ill.App. 17;12 Gray, 280;2 Ark. 260.The contract was made by the virtue of the grant of power in section 5525, Sandels & Hill's Digest, and it must be strictly pursued.Mech. Pub. Off. § 511;39 Ark. 550;38 Ark. 601, 604;25 Ark. 267;58 Ark. 270, 275;180 U.S. 587, 598-600;58 Ark. 270, 275; Tied.Lim. Pol. Pow. 100, 101, 118, 121.The alleged contracts were beyond the power of the superintendent, the board or the financial agent, because for a time in excess of their official term.Mech. Pub. Off. § 509;Sand. &H. Dig., §§ 5511, 5517;66 Ark. 466; 3 Vroom., 478;28 N.J.L. 244;123 Ind. 148;S. C. 7 L. R. A. 160;18 L. R. A. 447;16 L. R. A. 257;43 Kan. 643;5 Jones, Law, 98;51 Mo. 21;50 Kan. 350;43 Ia. 140;84 Mich. 391;87 Ill. 255;92 Ill. 294.Cf.44 Ark. 273;30 Ark. 693;146 U.S. 387, 452;134 U.S. 99, 106;100 U.S. 548, 559;115 U.S. 650; 18 Wall, 206;Cooley, Const.Lim. 282-3;180 U.S. 587, 597;id. 624;7 So. 409;178 Ill. 299, 313;1 Dill. Mun. Corp. § 97;45 Cal. 637, 638;43 Kan. 643;43 Ia. 140; 4 Dutch.244;85 Ala. 486.The doctrine of estoppel does not apply.59 Ark. 344, 351;58 Ark. 270, 275;54 Ark. 252;42 Ark. 118;Mech. Pub. Off. § 837.

Rose, Hemingway & Rose, for appellee.

If the contract be, as agreed by appellants, one made by the stateshe is bound thereby, upon the same principles as a private person would be.16 Wall. 232;15 How. 308.As no power of revocation was reserved, it could not be exercised.15 Fed. Cas. 214;65 Ia. 719;S. C.23 N.W. 139;15 Cal. 429;7 Minn. 286.It must be presumed that, in making the contracts, the board did its best for the state.60 Ark. 96.The action of the board cannot be attacked unless bad faith be shown.The statutes of 1869(p. 170), of March 28, 1871, and April 15, 1873, are all in pari materia, and must be construed with the present statute governing the lease and management of convicts.End.Stat. Int. §§ 43, 368;11 Ark. 596;3 How. 565; 137 U.S. 686; 18 Wall. 301;47 F. 136.The discretion of the board, if honestly exercised, is not subject to control.13 How. 52;7 Wall. 347;3 Ark. 427;9 Ark. 242;26 Ark. 13;2 Ark. 230;2 La.Ann. 542.When the contract was once made, its validity became a question for the courts alone.23 La.Ann. 225.The mention of one ground of forfeiture in the contract itself excludes all others.Wood, Land. & Ten. 521;1 Ark. 203;id. 540; End.Stat. Int. § 398;59 Ark. 409.The term of the contract was not limited to the official life of the officers who entered into it.18 How. 596;12 Ore. 459, S. C. 544;67 N.Y. 36; 29 N.E. 385, 387;37 P. 282;40 P. 175;11 Paige, 93;23 N.E. 752;S. C.7 L. R. A. 160;44 Mich. 500;16 Wis. 336;24 Minn. 273;112 Cal. 159;S. C.44 P. 358, 361;76 F. 271, 281;49 N.W. 21;7 So. 559, 560;88 F. 720, 737;39 A. 335;48 P. 824, 831;49 P. 15, 21;19 So. 771;15 A. 67, 78;98 Ill. 415;6 A. 424. S. C.48 N.J.L. 378;65 Conn. 334;36 Ia. 396.The question of expediency of the contract was for the authorized agent, and not the courts, and is material only as bearing on the charge of fraud.50 Ark. 447, 451;53 Ark. 486;55 Ark. 153;67 N.Y. 36; 29 N.E. 385;7 So. 11, 12;39 A. 336;34 Ark. 608;43 Ga. 67, 78;49 Pa. 21;7 So. 560;15 A. 325.If subject to attack. on the ground of unreasonableness, that fact must be made to appear plainly and unmistakably, and if the contrary is alleged by the complaint it must be accepted as true on demurrer.76 F. 282;16 Wis. 336;52 Ark. 302;56 Ark. 374.A state is bound by its contracts as an individual.34 Ark. 608;7 So. Rep. 12;50 Ark. 447, 481;45 Ark. 88;71 N.Y. 527, 549;89 N.Y. 44;1 Dill. Mun. Corp. § 66;4 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 566;31 N. E.(Ind.), 573;44 P. 358;39 A. 335;172 U.S. 15.The authority to contract implies the power to make an agreement binding on both parties.4 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 566;39 A. 336;70 Ala. 136, 143.And to make a contract that interferes with or prevents, to some extent, making other contracts.31 N.E. 577;13 P. 491;39 A. 336.Even admitting that the time is too long, the contract would be good to the limit of the legal period, and void only as to the excess.Webb, Usury, §§ 287, 519;39 Ark. 335;133 U.S. 488;45 S.W. 708;1 Russ. & M. 501;55 Ark. 159;34 Ark. 603;9 So.(Ala.), 815;28 Pac.(Kan.), 1103;19 Am. & Eng. Enc.Law, 513;96 U.S. 341;76 F. 271, 280;4 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 554, 563;Taylor, Land. & Ten.§ 138;24 Minn. 273;70 Ala. 144;2 Ves. Sr. 644;Nelson'sRep. 87;Ambler'sRep. 740.Certiorari would not lie.62 Ark. 96;54 Ark. 659;2 Ark. 257;26 Ark. 9;46 Ark. 386;Cooley, Const.Lim. 104.If certiorari was proper, it was not the exclusive remedy, and did not displace the rights to injunction.14 Ark. 257;6 Ark. 358.Objection on this ground should have been by motion to transfer from chancery, and not by demurrer.Sand. &H. Dig., § 1105;51 Ark. 235;52 Ark. 126;Id. 415.This is not a suit against the state.Since the action of the board in rescinding the contract was beyond its authority, it was not the agent of the state in so doing, and the state is not a proper party to this proceeding.The board was not the judge of the extent of its authority.2 Ark. 282;10 Ark. 145;16 Ark. 390;11 Ark. 598;66 Ark. 36;41 W.Va. 471;S. C.23 S.E. 804;9 Minn. 258;79 Ind. 373;7 Fed. Cas. 854; 3 McLean, 539;28 Fed. Cas. 24;11 Ark. 598;9 Ad. & E. 1.All judicial powers are vested in the courts.21 N.E. 244;9 Bush, 247;103 U.S. 191.When public agents exceed their authority, their acts are void, and do not bind their principals.96 U.S. 692;93 id. 257;4 Ark. 284;44 Ark. 456;27 Ark. 242;37 Ark. 142;24 Ark. 402;58 Ark. 381;32 Ark. 269;54 Ark. 165;33 Ark. 276;Mech. Pub. Off. § 663.If their action in endeavoring to cancel the contract was illegal, the state has no interest in justifying it.11 Wheat. 585;2 Pet. 323; 109 U.S. 452;154 U.S. 391; 16 Wall. 203; 92 U.S. 541;114 id. 315;107 id. 695;114 id. 317;140 U.S. 1;167 id. 221;40 Ark. 256;42 Ark. 244.This is a proper case for an injunction.Sand. &H. Dig., § 3777;2 Bl. 551;72 Ala. 277;S. C.47 Am. Rep. 412;3 Pom. Eq. Jur. § 1344;32 Ark. 343;55 N.Y. 393;90 N.Y. 409;147 U.S. 401;92 U.S. 531, 541;114 U.S. 315;id. 295;4 Ark. 303;30 Ark. 609;39 Ark. 412;42 Ark. 66;53 Ark. 205;Mech. Pub. Off. § 995;24 How. 268;1 Black, 342;13 Wall. 84, 86, 87;84 Ia. 649;S. C.51 N.W. 179;148 Mass. 1;S. C.18 N.E. 595;3 Sumn. 189;S. C.29 Fed. Cas. 506;138 U.S. 46.Appellants had no power to annul their contract.9 Ad. & E. 1;103 U.S. 168.There being no adequate remedy at law, equity had jurisdiction.5 Wall. 74;7 Wall. 430; 134 U.S. 349;144 N.Y. 174;S. C.38 N.E. 997;156 U.S. 688;158 U.S. 406;160 U.S. 51; 9 Cranch, 494;106 Mass. 253;129 Mass. 405.Injunction is grantable where a multiplicity of suits would be required to redress the threatened wrong.145 U.S. 473-4;138 U.S. 46;144 U.S. 566;163 U.S. 600;24 Pa.St. 159;S. C.62 Am. Dec. 372;19 Eng. L....