State ex rel. Davis v. Mortensen
Citation | 95 N.W. 831,69 Neb. 376 |
Decision Date | 11 June 1903 |
Docket Number | 13,207 |
Parties | STATE OF NEBRASKA, EX REL. EDWARD D. DAVIS, RELATOR, v. PETER MORTENSEN ET AL., CONSTITUTING THE BOARD OF PUBLIC LANDS AND BUILDINGS OF THE STATE OF NEBRASKA, RESPONDENTS |
Court | Supreme Court of Nebraska |
ORIGINAL application for a writ of mandamus to compel the state board of public lands and buildings to perform a contract for the hiring of convict labor. Writ denied.
WRIT DENIED.
George E. Hager, for relator.
Frank N. Prout, Attorney General, and Charles O. Whedon, contra.
In this case the relator, Davis, seeks by means of the writ of mandamus to compel respondents, who constitute the state board of public lands and buildings, to perform a contract for the hiring of convict labor. Two members of the board Mr. Mortensen and Mr. Folmer, admit the execution of the alleged contract, assert its validity, and say they are ready and willing to comply with its terms. The other two members Mr. Marsh and Mr. Prout, in effect, deny that the contract is valid and insist that, if valid, it cannot be enforced by mandamus. The Lee Broom & Duster Company, a corporation having a prior contract for convict labor, has intervened in the action, on the theory that the allowance of the writ would be prejudicial to its rights. The intervener's contract is in part as follows:
It can hardly be doubted that by the second clause of this contract the option is given to the intervener and not to the warden, who is described as the party of the first part. It would be an exceedingly awkward and inaccurate use of language to say that the warden shall, at his option, etc. Besides such a construction is, on practical grounds, inadmissible. Give the warden the option and the intervener the right to determine whether it has use for additional convicts, and the clause is completely emasculated.
There are now in the penitentiary 280 convicts, 100 of whom are performing menial prison duties. The others are in the service of the intervener. The contract which the relator is seeking to enforce is as follows:
CUTTING DISKS OR BLANKS OUT OF SHELLS.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hampton v. State Board of Education
... ... No such ... permission appears to have been given. Davis v ... Gray, 16 Wall. 203, 21 L.Ed. 447, had been modified by ... subsequent decisions. In re ... R ... Co., 255 U.S. 228, 41 S.Ct. 314, 65 L.Ed. 598; ... Garfield v. United States ex rel. Goldsby, 211 U.S ... 249, 29 S.Ct. 62, 53 L.Ed. 168; Western Union Tel. Co. v ... Andrews, ... 169 Mich. 332, 135 N.W. 265; State ex rel. Davis v ... Mortensen, 69 Neb. 376, 95 N.W. 831, 5 Ann. Cas. 291; ... Peeples v. Byrd, 98 Ga. 688, 25 S.E. 677; ... ...
-
Utah Construction Company v. State Highway Commission
... ... 83; Hjorth Co. v ... Trustees, 30 Wyo. 309; Raubaugh v. State, 95 ... Ohio St. 513; Davis v. Mortensen, (Nebr.) 95 N.W ... 831; Midwest Co. v. Board, 39 Wyo. 461. The state is ... not ... ...
-
Prowant v. Sealy
...Okla. 251, 156 P. 903; Hanna v. Mosher et al., 22 Okla. 501, 98 P. 358; Mobile County v. Linch (Ala.) 73 So. 423; State ex rel. Davis v. Mortensen, 69 Neb. 376, 95 N.W. 831; Yellow Jack Mining Co. v. Tegarden Bros., 104 Ark. 573, 149 S.W. 518; Doniphan K. & S. R. Co. v. Missouri & N. A. R. ......
-
Edwards v. Douglas Cnty.
...905 N.W.2d 551 (2018).10 See Moser , supra note 3. Accord Davis v. State , 297 Neb. 955, 902 N.W.2d 165 (2017).11 See State v. Mortensen , 69 Neb. 376, 95 N.W. 831 (1903).12 See, e.g., Burke v. Board of Trustees , 302 Neb. 494, 924 N.W.2d 304 (2019) ; McKenna v. Julian , 277 Neb. 522, 763 N......