Evening star., 1898-08-12
ENVELOPE CONTRACT
Judge Cole Refuses the Purcell Com
pany an Injunction.
The CONTRACT WAS LEGAL
The Judge Holds That Contractors
Have Remedyin Court Of Claims.
FFECT OF SION

According to the decision of Justice C. G.
Cole of the Supreme Court of the District
of Columbia, handed down this morning at
IL o'clock in Equity Court No. 2, the Purcell
Envelope Company of Holyoke, Mass, loses
it's contract to supply the Post Office De-
partment with stamped envelopes and news
paper wrappers for a term of four years.
The injunction to restrain the Postmaster
General from setting aside the Purcell con-
tract is denied by Judge Cole, on the ground
that the complainants have adequate rem
edy in the Court of Claims for any damage
that might result to them as result of the
annullment of said contract.
Quite an assembIage of lawyers and 9TH
ers interested in the case were in the court
room when Justice Cole read his decision.
Messrs A a. Hoehiing and John C. Fay,
representing the Purcell Envelope Com
pany and Mr. Purcell himself were inter-
ested listeners. District Attorney Henry E.
Davis and H J. Barrett, who conducted the
case for the Postmaster General were also
present. Judge Cole said:
The bill n tklS cause prays an injunc-
ton against the Postmaster General re-
straining him from in any wise setting
aside, annulling or refusing to perform
certain contract alleged to have peen en-
tered into between the complainant and
defendant for the furnishing by it TO the
Post Once Department stamped envelopes
ana newSDa2 ger Wral peIs for four years
then next ensuing nom and after the LIST
Cay OF Oct3 Der next. and from permitting
or authorizing any one whosoever other
than the complainant to furnish the same
After reciting the facts in connection
with the awarding of the contract by for
mer Postmaster General Gary to the Pur-
cell company, and the refusal of Postmas-
ter General Smith to sign it, Justice Cole
continued:
Hba dofa bo
alleged contract, and has advertised for
other proposals. and intends to make an
other contract therefor. The defendant re-
sists the granting of the injunction upon
the grounds, first. that the complainant has
no contract and, second, that if 1t had, a
court of equity has no jurisdiction to grant
an injunction, there being, as he contends,
ar adequate remedy at law.
Constitutes II Contract.
"As to the first ground of objection, 1t
was held by the Supreme Court of the
United States in the case of Garfield agt.
the United States that the award of a con-
tract to party by the POSTMASTER Cen
eral pursuant to advertisement by him
and a bid by the person 10 whom the award
was made constituted a complete contract
as fully as If the formal contract had been
reduced to writing and signed by the par
ties The grounds for holding that there
is a contract in this case are much stronger
this case was forwarded to the complain
ant with the request that 1t be signed and
returned, which was promptly done. Not
only this, but on the same day the con-
tract was sent to complainant for its exc
cution another letter was written it and
sent by the department in which instruc-
tions were given for the execution of some
OF the work to be done under the contract,
and In express terms acknowledging the
contract as existing between the parties at
the time.
Under these circumstances it is inma-
terlal that the Postmaster General did not
or has not signed the contract. On its re-
turn to the department. signed by the COM
plainant, 1t became as binding upon the
government as if it had been signed by the
postmaster General. The contract thus
consummated and having become binding
upon both parties, neither could avoid or
annul it without the consent of the other,
except in pursuance of some stipulation in
1t authorizing one the other to do SO
upon the happening of some event or con-
dition therein set worth.
THE defendant says in his answer that
after the contract had been awarded he as
POSTMASTER General caused a further in
yeSugatiOn TO be made into the financial
and business character of the complainant
and concluded that the complainant was
not suitable or proper person or body
polite to be intrusted with the carrying
out of the said contract, and accordingly
revoked and Cancelled and declared to be
nui and void the award of the contract to
con )lainant.
b t there is no stipulation or provision in
the contract authorizing the defendant to
avo or annul it on that ground. The con-
tract does contain stipulations empower
ing the defendant to abrogate it if the COM
plalnant shall make certain failures or de-
faults or commit certain frauds in the ex-
ecutiCn thereof, but nothing that can be
construed to give him power to annul it be-
cause he may entertain the belief, how
ever well founded, that complainant is
financially or otherwise unable or unfit to
| perform the contract. By the terms of the
contract he must await some actual default
! or wrong in the performance of 1t before he
| mas power to revoke it. If an error was
made in awarding the contract neither the
Postmaster General who made it. nor the
| defendant as his successor, had or has the
power to correct it by annulling the con-
tract. The action of the defendant, there
fore, purporting to annul the contract is
void, and it is nevertheless in full force and
binding alike upon both parties.
Has Remedy.
'"The second ground urged by defendant
is that complainant has an adequate rem
edy at law, which, IL true, is always q con-
elusive answer to an application for an
injunction. A court of equity will not re-
strain party to a contract for the sale
and delivery of personal property, or for
the doing of any act in relation thereto
while it remains wholly executory, from
violating it, although it is apparent that
the contract is valid and binding, and that
the party asking the injunction will be en-
titled to damages for the violation of it.
unless it also appears that the matter or
subject matter of the contract be such that
the opposite party could not in an action
upon the contract recover damages that
would compensate such party for the loss
he would sustain by the breach thereof
THE only remedy of the complainant for
damages for a breach of this contract
VIC uld be in a suit against the United States
in the Court of Claims, and complainant
claims that that would not be an adequate
remedy for several reasons. 1t calls atten-
ton to the fact that it could not have a
jury trial there, and the damages for the
violation of the contract, If they could be
ascertained at all, would have to be as
sessed by the court. But this fact has no
tendency to show that the remedy is in
adequate. The constitutional provision of