State v. Young
| Decision Date | 17 January 1907 |
| Parties | STATE v. YOUNG. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Polk County; 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:
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦Amount ¦Statutory ¦Overpayment.¦
¦ ¦Paid. ¦Price. ¦ ¦
+------------------------------------------+---------+-----------+------------¦
¦24,000 copies memorial day pamphlet ¦$192 00 ¦$36 00 ¦$156 00 ¦
+------------------------------------------+---------+-----------+------------¦
¦15,000 copies school district pamphlet ¦120 00 ¦22 50 ¦97 50 ¦
+------------------------------------------+---------+-----------+------------¦
¦20,000 copies bird day pamphlet ¦160 00 ¦30 00 ¦130 00 ¦
+------------------------------------------+---------+-----------+------------¦
¦10,000 copies election law pamphlet ¦45 00 ¦15 00 ¦30 00 ¦
+------------------------------------------+---------+-----------+------------¦
¦5,000 copies election law document ¦49 00 ¦7 50 ¦41 50 ¦
+------------------------------------------+---------+-----------+------------¦
¦35,000 copies school law pamphlet ¦280 00 ¦52 50 ¦227 50 ¦
+------------------------------------------+---------+-----------+------------¦
¦20,000 copies circular of information ¦160 00 ¦30 00 ¦130 00 ¦
¦pamphlet ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+------------------------------------------+---------+-----------+------------¦
¦500 copies mining laws pamphlet ¦4 00 ¦75 ¦3 25 ¦
+------------------------------------------+---------+-----------+------------¦
¦1,000 copies treasury department circular ¦8 00 ¦1 50 ¦6 50 ¦
¦No. 8 document ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+------------------------------------------+---------+-----------+------------¦
¦3,000 copies of treasury department ¦7 50 ¦4 50 ¦3 00 ¦
¦circular No. 9 document ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+------------------------------------------+---------+-----------+------------¦
¦1,000 copies treasury department circular ¦2 50 ¦1 00 ¦1 50 ¦
¦No. 10 document ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+------------------------------------------+---------+-----------+------------¦
¦64,200 copies monthly review crop service ¦529 84 ¦96 30 ¦433 54 ¦
¦document ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
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 sidestitched; 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 $1,740.50, 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:
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦Amount¦Statutory¦Overpayment.¦
¦ ¦Paid. ¦Price. ¦ ¦
+-----------------------------------------------+------+---------+------------¦
¦(1) 1,500 copies of the biennial report of the ¦$240 ¦$101 10 ¦$138 90 ¦
¦Auditor of State for 1899 ¦00 ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----------------------------------------------+------+---------+------------¦
¦(2) 4,500 copies of the insurance report of the¦720 00¦295 20 ¦424 80 ¦
¦Auditor of State for 1899 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----------------------------------------------+------+---------+------------¦
¦(3) 2,500 copies of the biennial report of the ¦400 00¦123 50 ¦276 50 ¦
¦Treasurer of State for 1899 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----------------------------------------------+------+---------+------------¦
¦(4) 1,500 copies of the biennial report of the ¦240 00¦111 90 ¦128 10 ¦
¦state board of health for 1899 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----------------------------------------------+------+---------+------------¦
¦(5) 923 copies of the report of the Railroad ¦148 58¦52 24 ¦96 34 ¦
¦Commissioners for 1897 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----------------------------------------------+------+---------+------------¦
¦(6) 1,000 copies of the report of the Railroad ¦160 00¦45 80 ¦114 20 ¦
¦Commissioners for 1898 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----------------------------------------------+------+---------+------------¦
¦(7) 1,000 copies of the report of the Railroad ¦160 00¦47 60 ¦112 40 ¦
¦Commissioners for 1899 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----------------------------------------------+------+---------+------------¦
¦(8) 1,000 copies of the first biennial report ¦160 00¦125 00 ¦35 00 ¦
¦of the board of control ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----------------------------------------------+------+---------+------------¦
¦(9) 3,000 copies of the biennial report of the ¦480 00¦159 00 ¦321 00 ¦
¦Superintendent of Public Instruction for 1899 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----------------------------------------------+------+---------+------------¦
¦(10) 3,000 copies of the biennial report of the¦480 00¦240 00 ¦240 00 ¦
¦adjutant general for 1899 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----------------------------------------------+------+---------+------------¦
¦(11) 4,500 copies of the insurance report of ¦720 00¦287 10 ¦432 90 ¦
¦the Auditor of the State for 1900, volume 1 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----------------------------------------------+------+---------+------------¦
¦(12) 4,500 copies of the insurance report of ¦720 00¦303 30 ¦416 70 ¦
¦the Auditor of State for 1900, volume 2 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
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 entitledfor 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.
Chas. W. Mullen, Atty. Gen., 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Waters v. State to Use of Maryland Unemployment Ins. Fund, 220
... ... U. S., 5 Cir., 1932, 56 F.2d 559; Demopolis v. Marengo County, 1915, 195 Ala. 214, 70 So. 275 (money paid under a void appropriation); Gilpatric v. Hartford, 1923, 98 Conn. 471, 120 A. 317 (money paid over by state to the town); State v. Young, 1907, 134 Iowa 505, 110 N.W. 292, 13 Ann.Cas. 345 (payment to state bindery in excess of lawful fees); Independent School Dist. v. Mittry, 1924, 39 Idaho 282, 226 P. 1076 (overpayment by town to contractor); Ada County v. Gess, 1895, 4 Idaho 611, 43 P. 71 (overpayment to county executor); ... ...
-
Bartron v. Codington County
... ... Is the practice of medicine and surgery for gain by a corporation prohibited by statute? That in the exercise of police powers of the state the Legislature can prohibit [68 SD 316] corporations from engaging in the business of supplying the services of licensed physicians and surgeons ... Grier, Appellant, 179 Pa. 639, 36 A. 353; County of Wayne v. Reynolds, 126 Mich. 231, 85 NW 574, 86 AmStRep 541; State v. Young, 134 Iowa 505, 110 NW 292, 13 Ann. Cas. 345; Board of Commissioners of Huntington Couny v. Heaston, 144 Ind. 583, 41 NE 457, 43 NE 651, 55 AmStRep ... ...
-
Ward County, a Public Corporation v. Halverson
... ... the defense of estoppel. Milwaukee v. Badger Chair & Furniture Co. 223 Wis. 118, 269 N.W. 663 ... Roy ... A. Ilvedson, State's Attorney, and B. A ... Dickinson, for respondent ... Where a ... public officer of a county collects and receives ... 79, 155 N.W. 658; Chrysler Light & P. Co. v ... Belfield, 58 N.D. 33, 224 N.W. 871; 29 Cyc. 1425; Ann ... Cas. 1915B, 811; State v. Young, 134 Iowa 505, 110 ... N.W. 292; County Ct. v. Long, 72 W.Va. 8, 77 S.E. 328 ... When a ... party has presented a claim against ... ...
-
Tyler County Court v. Long
... ... and fix the compensation of sheriffs and other officers of ... the several counties of the state and for other purposes, and ... which by its terms repeals all acts and parts of acts ... inconsistent therewith, says: "Each sheriff *** shall ... Reynolds, 126 Mich. 231, 85 ... N.W. 574, 86 Am.St.Rep. 541; Commonwealth v. Field, ... 84 Va. 26, 3 S.E. 882; State v. Young, 134 Iowa 505, ... 110 N.W. 292, 13 Ann.Cas. 345; Heath v. Albrook, 123 ... Iowa 559, 98 N.W. 619; Ward v. Town of Barnum, 10 ... Colo. App. 496, ... ...