State v. Lafayette Young
| Decision Date | 17 January 1907 |
| Parties | STATE OF IOWA, Appellant, v. LAFAYETTE YOUNG |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
REHEARING DENIED, MONDAY, MAY 20, 1907.
Appeal from Polk District Court.-- HON. JAMES A. HOWE, Judge.
THE defendant was the duly elected and qualified binder of the State of Iowa for two years beginning January 2, 1899, and the plaintiff claims that during that period he was overpaid by the State for work done in that capacity. The petition in the first count alleges that he was paid for binding a large number of pamphlets and documents with covers, when these were in fact bound without covers. The items, with the amounts paid, together with the fees allowed by statute for binding without covers, are as follows:
24,000
copies memorial day pamphlet
$ 192 00
$ 36 00
$ 156 00
15,000
copies school district pamphlet
120 00
20,000
copies bird day pamphlet
160 00
130 00
10,000
copies election law pamphlet
5,000
copies election law document
7 50
35,000
copies school law pamphlet
280 00
227 50
20,000
copies circular of information pam-
phlet
160 00
130 00
500
copies mining laws pamphlet
4 00
75
3 25
1,000
copies treasury department circu-
lar No. 8 document
8 00
1 50
6 50
3,000
copies of treasury department circu-
lar No. 9 document
7 50
4 50
3 00
1,000
copies treasury department circular
No. 10 document
2 50
1 00
1 50
64,200
copies monthly review crop service
document
529 84
433 54
It was also alleged in this count that 35,000 copies of manual for normal instruction pamphlet, of 84 pages, was side-stitched trimmed, and bound without a cover; that it consisted of signatures gathered by placing one signature upon another and in that manner were bound together by being wire side-stitched; that defendant was paid 15 cents for each signature in the pamphlet, instead of 15 cents for each pamphlet, or in all $ 262.50 instead of $ 52.50, as allowed by statute. It was farther alleged that there was an overcharge for binding 6,000 bar dockets of the Supreme Court; that the signatures were folded and gathered, by placing one on another, and side-stitched and bound without cover; that he was entitled therefor to but $ 9. whereas he received $ 210. It is also alleged that he was overpaid for binding the annual report of the executive council of the State, and $ 5.40 for binding three copies of the annual report of the dairy association. All these items amount to $ 1,740.80, for which recovery was demanded.
In the second count of the petition it is alleged that a large number of reports of state officers were sewed in being bound, when the law required them to be stitched. These items, with the amount paid and the prices alleged to be fixed by law, are as follows:
(1)
1,500
copies of the biennial report
of the Auditor of State for
1899
$ 240 00
$ 101 10
$ 138 90
(2)
4,500
copies of the insurance report
of the Auditor of State for 1899
720 00
295 20
424 80
(3)
2,500
copies of the biennial report
of the Treasurer of State for
1899
400 00
123 50
276 50
(4)
1,500
copies of the biennial report
of the state board of health
for 1899
240 00
111 90
128 10
(5)
923
copies of the report of the
Railroad Commissioners for
1897
148 58
(6)
1,000
copies of the report of the
Railroad Commissioners for
1898
160 00
114 20
(7)
1,000
copies of the report of the
Railroad Commissioners for
1899
160 00
112 40
(8)
1,000
copies of the first biennial re-
port of the board of control
160 00
125 00
(9)
3,000
copies of the biennial report
of the Superintendent of Pub-
lic Instruction for 1899
480 00
159 00
321 00
(10)
3,000
copies of the biennial report
of the adjutant general for
1899
480 00
240 00
240 00
(11)
4,500
copies of the insurance report
of the Auditor of the State
for 1900, volume 1
720 00
287 10
432 90
(12)
4,500
copies of the insurance report
of the Auditor of State for
1900, volume 2
720 00
303 30
416 70
It is also alleged as a part of this count that he overcharged the sum of $ 200. for binding the report of the proceedings of the Academy of Sciences. Recovery is demanded on this account for $ 2,896.84. The State averred that payment of these items was made by mistake of the Secretary of State, and that repayment has been demanded and refused.
In answering, the defendant admitted having received the various sums as alleged in payment of the work done, but denied that any pamphlets or documents paid for as being covered were without covers, and denied that any of the charges were other than those fixed by law and to which he was legally entitled. By way of affirmative defense he alleged that the bills for the several items enumerated were presented to Hon. G. L. Dobson, then Secretary of State, who made due examination thereof, and, with knowledge of all the facts touching the defendant's right to compensation, audited, adjusted, and allowed the several amounts as having been earned in accordance with the provisions of law, and certified them as correct to the Auditor of State, who issued his warrant thereon as by statute required, and such warrants were honored by the State Treasurer. The defendant avers that the payments so made were voluntary, and that in any event the Secretary of State was clothed with full authority to pass upon and allow the amounts to which the defendant was entitled for work, and having done so, and certifying said amounts, the entire matter has been adjudicated and is not open to farther investigation.
At the close of the evidence for the State, the items of the second count were withdrawn from the jury. The issues raised on the first count were submitted, and a verdict returned for the defendant, on which judgment was rendered. The State appeals.-- Reversed.
Reversed.
Chas. W. Mullen, Attorney General, for the State.
Carr, Hewitt, Parker & Wright, for appellee.
The defendant was the duly elected and qualified State Binder of the State of Iowa for the term of two years beginning January 2, 1899, and the plaintiff claims that during such period he was overpaid for work done in that capacity. Section 141 of the Code fixes the prices which shall be paid:--
For all work done for the State in an acceptable manner, as in this chapter provided: (1) For folding and trimming all documents not stitched, ten cents per hundred copies; (2) for folding, trimming, and stitching documents not covered, fifteen cents per one hundred copies; (3) for folding, stitching, and binding in paper covers all messages, reports, documents, not exceeding one sheet, allowing sixteen pages for a sheet, eighty cents per hundred copies of sixteen pages or less, and for each additional sheet of sixteen pages or less, eighteen cents per one hundred copies, the cover not to be counted; (4) for folding, sewing, and binding in paper covers the journals of the two houses, sixteen cents per copy; (5) for folding, sewing, and binding in muslin or cases, with gilt letters, the lettering and general style of the books to be the same as reports heretofore published, fifteen cents per copy for a volume of one hundred and fifty pages or less; twenty-one cents per copy for a volume containing one hundred and fifty pages, and not more than four hundred pages, and for each additional one hundred pages or fraction thereof, four cents; for folding, sewing, and binding Agricultural and Horticultural Society reports in board covers with muslin backs, similar in style with the Acts of the General Assembly, eighteen cents per copy; (6) for folding, sewing, and binding in half-sheep, with gilt letters for title, the lettering and general style of the books to be the same as documents heretofore published, twenty-six cents per copy for each volume of four hundred pages or less, and four cents for each additional hundred pages or fraction thereof; (7) for folding, stitching, and binding the Acts and Resolutions of each General Assembly in boards, with muslin backs and paper sides, same as Laws of 1886, ten cents per copy; (8) for folding, sewing, and binding in law sheep, same style as the reports of the Supreme Court fifty cents per copy for each volume of five hundred pages or less, and four cents for each additional one hundred pages or fraction thereof; (9) for ruling he shall be allowed the sum of seventy-five cents per hour for time actually employed; (10) for binding the Iowa Official Register, eight cents per copy for the first ten thousand copies, and six cents per copy thereafter.
It will be observed that all the items included in the second count of the petition, except one, were for binding the reports of State officers, and therefore the work should have been done in accordance with subdivision 3 and compensation made as provided therein. The difference is that the reports should have been "stitched," but instead were "sewed," and the defendant was paid prices accordingly as fixed in subdivision 4. How this came about does not appear in the record, as this count of the petition was withdrawn from the jury, and there was no occasion for such proof. It is to be noted, however, that the State Binder did not overcharge for the character of the work done, but did a different, as the evidence tended to show, and a more costly, kind of work than the statute contemplated. In the process of sewing one signature (a sheet of paper to be folded into four, eight, or sixteen pages) is folded and placed on another until the back is completed, grooves are then cut in the back, cords inserted therein, and each...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Callaway v. Axtell
...599, 4 N.E.2d 117; Board of Com'rs of Huntington County v. Heaston, 1895, 144 Ind. 583, 41 N.E. 457, 43 N.E. 651; State v. Young, 1907, 134 Iowa 505, 110 N.W. 292; Inhabitants of City of Biddeford v. Benoit, 1929, 128 Me. 240, 147 A. 151; County of Wayne v. Reynolds, 1901, 126 Mich. 231, 85......
- State v. Young