State v. Jones

• Decision Date: 25 January 1898
• Citation: 44 S.W. 224,142 Mo. 354
• Parties: STATE ex rel. PARKER-WASHINGTON CO. v. JONES et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

44 S.W. 224

142 Mo. 354

STATE ex rel. PARKER-WASHINGTON CO. v. JONES et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

January 25, 1898.

MANDAMUS — ORIGINAL APPLICATION TO SUPREME COURT — WHEN ENTERTAINED.

In an original application to the supreme court for a writ of mandamus to compel the mayor and common council of a city to confirm a contract for paving with asphaltum, relator alleged that he was the lowest bidder, and that the refusal to confirm was fraudulent and corrupt. Held, that such case was not of such importance that it would be entertained as an original one by the supreme court.

In banc. Original application by the state of Missouri, on the relation of the Parker-Washington Company, for a writ of mandamus to compel one Jones and others, as mayor and common councilmen of the city of Kansas

City, to confirm a certain paving contract. Defendants move to quash the alternative writ. Motion sustained.

Brown, Chapman & Brown and Johnson & Lucas, for relator. R. B. Middlebrook and Harkless, O'Grady & Crysler, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This is an original action here, by which relator seeks a peremptory mandamus to defendants, the mayor and common councilmen of Kansas City, to require them to confirm an agreement for city work let to relator by the city engineer of Kansas City, under an ordinance of that city. The proposed work is designed to improve certain streets by the construction of asphaltum pavement thereon. Relator asserts that he was the lowest and best bidder for the work, and, having been awarded the contract (subject to confirmation), is now deprived of its benefit and profit by the refusal of the common council to confirm the intended contract. The relator charges that said refusal is fraudulent and corrupt, and is intended to drive relator out of the business of laying such pavement in said city. An alternative mandamus was sued out in vacation of this court. In due time, a return was made, in which defendants allege that relator is unable to comply with the contract on his part, in that he cannot furnish asphaltum of the proper quality demanded by the proposed contract. This allegation is traversed.

The defendants have filed a motion to quash the alternative writ, on the grounds that the pleadings disclose that this is not a case of more than ordinary magnitude and importance, and hence should not be entertained and determined as an original one by this court, especially as serious issues of fact are raised. We have given due...