The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1889-09-11
THE BOOK TRUST BEATEN.
Juoeewooos DENIES ANINJuNcTIoN
He Holds That Ivison. Brakeman & Co. Had
No Contract With the Indianapolis
School Commissioners-Fuu
Text of the Opinion.

Brakeman x Co., and the Indianapolis
school board will, therefore, tomorrow be-
gin the use OF the books prescribed BY the
new Indiana law. It will be seen from
the opinion, which is printed below, that
the court refused the injunction on the
ground that there was no contract for q
period Of years, as alleged.
The decision leaves the petitioners with
out any further standing in court. The
opinion was as follows:
''The bill of compliments is to the eff
feet that in May, 1888, the board Of school
commissioners of the city of indianapolis
entered into contract with compliments
whereby on terms stated Swinton's geOg-
raphies were adopted for use in the
schools OF the city for the term of six
years; that the compliments have fully
complied with the contract on their part,
but that the commissioners, supposing
themselves bound in law to such action,
are about to adopt and introduce to the
exclusion of compliments books, books
to be supplied by contractors under GER
tain act of the legislature Of Indiana OF
date of March ,, 1889 facts 1889, p. IA;
that said act, besides being in violation OF
the constitution of the state, for reasons
stated is invalid IN respect to the contract
OF the compliments and board of school
commissioners aforesaid, and in violation
of the constitution of the United States,
because, if upheld, it would impair the OBJ
legation OF that contract.
an respect to the making and terms OF
the contract the bill shows that at the
regular session of the board on May /,
ISIS, a resolution was passed that Swim
tons Biographies be adopted, provided
satisfactory terms could be obtained with
the publishers; and that after cOnferrlng
with the board the compliments signed
and submitted to the board, at it's session
on the 18th day Of May, 1888, the follow
ing proposition: Here follows the prop
osition submitted TO the school board by
Ivison, Brakeman q Co., on May Is.
And that thereupon, at said meeting, 1t
was moved by a member OF the board
that said proposition be adopted by said
board and the agreement cOncurred in,
which was then and there done, as fully
appears upon the files and records OF the
board.
I'm respect to the powers of the school
commissioners of the city 10 adopt books
and make contracts for their supply, the
statutory provisions are as follows: Sec.
4.436 and seventh clause 4,460, revised
statutes, 1881.
''The bylaw of the board on the subject
is as follows: Sec. I, page "A, manual OF
the public schools, etc.
AT the Threshold, manifestly, is the
inquiry whether the compliments have
the contract right which they assert. Ii
not, they have no cause of complaint
against the respondent, and no right, in
this court certainly, TO bring into question
the validity or scope OF the act of the
legislature of the state, under which, it
alleged, the respondent is about to take
action in hostility to compliments in
terests.
"By the seventh clause of sec. 4, $780,
supra, the board of school commissioners
are empowered to establish and enforce
regulations for the grading of and course
OF instruction in the schools of the city,
In this clause, helped out possibly by inn
plication from sec. 4, 436, supra, must be
found whatever authority there is for
making such a contract as the one inques-
ton. And considering the principle that
grants of power to municipal corporations
are TO be construed strictly, it is not clear
that the board had power to bind itself
by stipulation that the books adopted
should continue in use for stated period
of years. This power to select or adopt
books was given, mainly at least, for the
benefit of the public, and to be used as
occasion should require, and it is not con-
sistent with this design that in single ex-
ercise OF it the board abrogate or annul it,
by STIMULATING that it should not for term
stated be exercised again. If this could
be done for six years, it could for sixty
But whatever the power of the board
in this respect may have been, the propo-
sition submitted by the complainants and
accepted by the board, constituting what
ever CONTRACT there is between them. does
not show an agreement that complainants'
books shall he used Tor the term OF six
years or for any definite time.
Indeed, ] am not clear that by this
transaction the board can be deemed to
have come under any obligation to the
compliments whatever. 1t seems neither
10 have simply exercised its authority 10
Gd0Dt and as condition Of its action to have
exacted of the compliments promise to
furnish the books at the prices stated
''during the term OF use OF such books
in indianapolis" that is to say so
long as such books should be used in In
dianapolis. That the understanding at
Ilt LUlC Was lLldb the DOdIu was QOlnR.
and binding itself to do, nothing beyond
the adoption OF the books, is indicated in
the first sentence of complainants' prOpo-
sitiOn: This paper is to certify that if
SwintOn's biographies be adopted by the
school board of Indianapolis, Ivison,
Brakeman, Taylor q Co., as publishers of
said books, will furnish them, etc. and
In the entire document and in the resolu-
tons adopted by the board there is no
suggestion OF a condition, compact or
promise, that there should be after the
adoption any further action or liability on
the part of the board. Practically, the
action taken was simply a grant by the
board 10 the complainants OF the
exclusive privilege or right to furnish to
the pupils and patrons of the CITY schools
the books specified, upon the terms
stated, until other books instead of them
should be adopted-that is to say, during
the pleasure OF the board. And in this
view, the adoption is applicable that
grants of franchises and special privileges
are always to be construed most strongly
against the clause and In favoro of the pub
lie" Turnpike company We. Illinois, 96;
L. s. SO. Slidell VS.. Grandyear 101 II. 81
But aside from this doctrine and con-
ceding that the compliments have a con-
tract which should be interpreted by the
ordinary rules, there is in it no such am
bIguity or incompleteness as to admit of
extraneous evidence to explain its mean
sr<r ~ VI anlarOe its acODa The affidavifS