State ex rel. Woodruff-Dunlap Printing Company v. Cornell
Decision Date | 15 June 1897 |
Docket Number | 9216 |
Citation | 71 N.W. 961,52 Neb. 25 |
Parties | STATE OF NEBRASKA, EX REL. WOODRUFF-DUNLAP PRINTING COMPANY, v. JOHN F. CORNELL ET AL |
Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
ERROR from the district court of Lancaster county. Tried below before HOLMES, J. Reversed.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
J. H Broady, for plaintiff in error.
C. J Smyth, Attorney General, and Ed P. Smith, Deputy Attorney General, contra.
The relator herein filed in the district court of Lancaster county an application for a writ of mandamus to issue against John F. Cornell, the auditor of public accounts, John B. Meserve, state treasurer, and William F. Porter, secretary of state, who by law constitute the state printing board, to compel such board to award and cause to be let to the relator a contract to do certain of the public printing. An alternative writ was issued, in which appeared certain formal statements, to which we need devote no space or attention; also, that prior to December, 1896, and up to January 7, 1897, Eugene Moore was auditor of public accounts, Joseph S. Bartley was state treasurer, and Joel A. Piper secretary of state, and collectively the state printing board, and as such board advertised for proposals or bids for doing public printing, separating the work to be done, arranging one portion of it under what was designated in the advertisement "Class One," and the other as "Class Three;" that in the advertisement the board assumed to reserve the right to award contracts for the work to be done under Class Three in or on as many separate contracts as it should deem best; that the relator made its proposal or bid for the performance of the work included under Class Three, and accompanied its bid with good and sufficient bond conditioned as required by law, and in the sum of $ 5,000; that the bids offered were duly considered by the printing board, and it was determined that the relator's bid was the lowest and best bid for the work included in Class Three and the relator a responsible bidder. The printing for the doing of which proposals had been asked, arranged and classed as three, was of reports of state officers, and it was further pleaded that for the printing of six of said reports the bid of relator was the lowest; that for six of them the bid of Jacob North & Co. was the lowest, and for printing of four of them the bid of the State Journal Company was the lowest, but in the aggregate, or for printing the whole number, the proposal of relator was the lowest; and further:
To the writ the board filed an answer, in which it admitted the formal allegations of the writ and the allegations in regard to the advertisement for bids, the bidding, and that relator's bid was accompanied by its bond in the sum of $ 5,000; also that the bids of the State Journal Company, Jacob North & Co., and the relator were as stated in the writ, and were all determined by the printing board to be unobjectionable in form and substance, and that an award was made to each of a portion of the printing included in Class Three, as more fully shown by a copy of the record of proceedings in this regard of the printing board, of date December 8, 1896, which copy was as an exhibit attached to and made a part of the answer. It was also admitted that the respondents had declined as a board to take any action in the matter, and refused to order a contract to be entered into with relator for the printing of all of said reports. There was a denial that the bid of relator was determined by the board to be the lowest and best for the work included in Class Three; also a denial of the conversations and transactions alleged to have occurred between the printing board and the relator prior to January 7, 1897. It was affirmatively alleged in the answer that the board was ready and willing to enter into a contract with relator for the printing of the six reports for which its bid was and had been declared the lowest and best. The further allegations in the answer were as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hennessy v. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co.,
... ... Quincy Railway Company and another to recover damages for ... personal ... Bowman, 19 S.W. 589 (Ky.); State v. Cornell, 71 ... N.W. 961; City of Los Angeles ... ...
-
State ex rel. Woodruff-Dunlap Printing Co. v. Cornell
...52 Neb. 2571 N.W. 961STATE EX REL. WOODRUFF-DUNLAP PRINTING CO.v.CORNELL ET AL.Supreme Court of Nebraska.June 15, Syllabus by the Court. [71 N.W. 961] 1. That part of section 2, c. 68, Comp. St., in which is stated, “The printing and binding of reports of state officers, authorized by law t......