The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1899-04-21
THE DEFENDANTS DEMUR
TIE CASE PUT BEFORE THE
COURT on THE LAW.
DID LEGISLATURE MAKE A CONTRACT !?
lfso Can Il be Enforced by Mandamus Against
The Committee to Whom the Award
of the Public Printing
Was Given?

Yesterday, from ~ TO 4 cioch, peloic
the Supreme court.
The title of the case in the courts is
CAPITAL Printing Company VS.. Clyde Il.
Hoey and others. as members of and
composing the Joint Committee on Print
ing. Cyrus Thompson, Secretary of
State. c. e. Edwards and \. II. Brough-
ion. trading as Edwards X Broughton,
and f. NJ. Uzzell.
The case for the plaintiff was argued
by Alex j. Field and II. III. Battle; for
the defendants. Edwards X Broughton,
tee by H. \. Holding.
1t took half an hour to read the mate
rial parts of the record.
At its conclusion Judge Womack read
the following demurrer:
The defendants other than Cyrus
Thompson. Secretary of State. come be-
fore this court by their respective attor-
news and move the court to dismiss this
action and affirm the Judgment of the
court below. and in support of their said
melton, file this as their demurrer ore
tenus.
They aver that the complaint does
not constitute Il cause of action. and
that this court is withou; jurisdiction
to hear and determine the same, for
that.
Il. This is, in effect. an action against
the State of North Carolina. without its
consent. and in Il court which is without
jurisdiction in actions against the State.
Constitution Article ", Section 8.
80. Under the provisions of the
statute relied upon by the plaintiff the
Joint Committee on Printing was given
deliberatve. judicial and discretionary
powers. which extended until the maxi
ing, executions and delivery of the con
tract required by the statute, which this
court cannot control; especially in the
absence of all allegations of fraud or
mala tides.
%. Mandamus is not proper remedy.
in that the plaintiff does not establish
a clear legal right to the relief sought
n. The Joint Committee ON Printing
have exhausted their authority by max
ing, executing and delivering the con-
tract to the defendants Edwards &
Broughton and f. NJ. Uzzell. and they
are themselves, being legislative COM
mittee, funti officio. during the recess OF
the General Assembly.
-. The relief sought cannot be granted
for that which has been done cannot be
undone by mandamus.
70. Mandamus being a legal remedy
equitable relief cannot be granted there
III, either for the specific performance
of the alleged contract with the plaintiff
or the injunction sought against Edwards
x Broughton and f. Nj. Uzzel
u. This action being returnable be-
fore the judge and not to term time. in
junction cannot issue.
IS. The court cannot try the rights Of
Edwards * Broughton and Il. NJ. LIZ
zell. and their respective relations with
the State Of North Carolina. by virtue
of their contract with the State III a
proceeding for mandamus.
~ The court will not determine be-
tween conflicting claimants to duty
or thing. in a proceeding for mandamus.
10 For that there is an adequate
remedy ut law; as against the State
by an action begun by petition before
the Supreme. court. and as against the
other defendants, an action for damages.
there being no allegations of insolvency.
III. For that the court cannot, by
mandamns. require or prevent an officer
of the State from performing plain
duty of a statute, to-wit: obey the Joint
Resolution set out in the complaint,
whatever may be the rights of the plain
tiff as against the State
The effect of the above demurrer was.
of course, to shut off all argument of
fact and put the case before the court
entirely on a question of law.
This done conn sol l,PacaaJaI will, -
argument.
The substance of the complaint was.
he said, that the defendants who com
pose the Joint Committee on Printing.
III accordance with the Act of the Gen
eral Assembly. ratified February 9th
1899, advertised for bidders and that
plaintiff was ascertained and declared
to be the lowest responsible bidder for
the public printing. and rendered a
bond which was adjudged sufficient
under the act; and that thereupon the
committee, by vote in regular meeting
accepted plaintiffs bid and awarded tc
it the contract for the public printing
that subsequently the committee de
clined to sign any written evidence OF q
contract, but insisted OH plaintiff
signing IA paper writing which was not
III accordance with the act of ASSEM-
bly,. advertisement or bid, and which die
not express the contract entered into by
plaintiff That subsequently the com
mittee, i'll pursuance of joint resolution
of the General Assembly, signed with
defendants, Edwards 4 Broughton anC
e. Nj. Czzell, a paper writing purportina
to be contract for the public printing
thereby ignoring the vested rights of tn,
plaintiff under its contract with the com
mittee. That plaintiff claims that tn,
joint resolution and the attempted con
tract hereunder, if it is to have tn,
effect contended for by defendants. il
unconstitutional and void, because j
would arbitrarily take from plaintiff an,
give to others the right to do the Stat
printing and to receive the compensation
therefor; it would take from plaintiff it