State v. M'Grath

• Citation: 3 S.W. 846,91 Mo. 386
• Parties: STATE ex rel. STATE JOURNAL CO. v. McGRATH, Secretary of State, and others.
• Decision Date: 21 March 1886
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

3 S.W. 846

91 Mo. 386

STATE ex rel. STATE JOURNAL CO. v. McGRATH, Secretary of State, and others.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March 21, 1886.

MANDAMUS — COMMISSIONERS OF PUBLIC PRINTING — CONTRACTS.

The duties imposed upon the Missouri commissioners of public printing by Rev. St. 1879, § 6594, in letting contracts for such printing, are not purely ministerial, but involve the exercise of such a degree of discretion as to place them beyond the control of a court by mandamus issued at the instance of a party claiming to be the lowest responsible bidder for such work.

Appeal from circuit court, Cole county.

Edwards & Davison and J. C. Fisher, for appellant. D. H. McIntyre and Smith & Krauthoff, for respondents.

RAY, J.

This was a petition for mandamus to compel the defendants, as ex officio commissioners of public printing, to award to the plaintiff a certain contract for public printing, therein mentioned, having two years to run from July 1, 1884. The petition was filed in the Cole circuit court on July 3, 1884, and afterwards, on the same day, an alternative writ was issued by the judge of said court, returnable to the ensuing December term thereof, when the defendants filed a demurrer to the same, which, being heard and considered by the court, was sustained, and the bill dismissed; from which judgment the plaintiff appealed to this court.

The material allegations of the alternative writ are to the effect following: That said commissioners, under section 6594, Rev. St. 1879, proceeded to advertise for "sealed proposals" for executing the state printing for the term of two years from and after July 1, 1884; that the relator, relying upon the good faith of said advertisement, so made, did submit its proposals for the "second class" printing, so advertised, at the price and sum of 29 cents per 1,000 ems for composition, and 24 cents per token for all press-work, which said proposal was accompanied by a satisfactory bond and security, as required by law; that said commissioners thereupon proceeded to open all such proposals by them received, when it appeared that only two proposals had been submitted for the printing of the second class, — one by relator, at the price and sum aforesaid, and the other by the Tribune Printing Company, at the price and sum of 32 cents per 1,000 ems for composition, and 25 cents per token for all press-work; and that relator was then found to be the lowest responsible bidder for all printing of said second class, as provided by law. Relator avers and charges that it was the duty of said commissioners, on careful examination and computation, under section 6595, Rev. St. 1879. to award the contract for said printing to the relator, as such lowest responsible bidder therefor, which the commissioners then and there refused to do, and still refuse so to do. Relator further says that it is advised, believes, and so charges that said commissioners arbitrarily, and in violation of law, have awarded said contract for said printing to the said Tribune Printing Company, which was not the lowest responsible bidder therefor; that great injury will be done relator and the tax-payers of the state if said contract is not awarded to the lowest bidder; that the relator is without other adequate remedy for the wrong so done, unless it be corrected by writ of mandamus. Wherefore...