The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1902-09-05

general had construed this law. but not
in relation to this particular contract
or this particular company, and had
placed a construction upon this law
that had stood for considerable length |
of time and other persons had acted
upon it, the American Book company
went to him and according to the evil
dence in this case. it did what the at
toruey general indicated should be done
for the purpose of emitting it to come
into the state and transact business 1t
is true that subsequent to that time
the supreme court. when the matter
was submitted to it. decided in con-
dict with the opinion of the attorney
general But the defendant in this ac-
ton had acted upon the opinion of the
attorney general mention these things
for the purpose OF showing that the
defendant company was not wilfully
violating the state law. The most that
can be said is that they. In common
with others, were mistaken as to what
the state law was and as to the con-
struction that should be placed upon it
In relation to the opinion of the
attorney general, read from Lawyers
Reports Annotated In discussing this
question the court saws the question
of the force and authority OF q practt-
cal construction of a statute has often
been passed upon by the court The
construction placed by an executive de-
partment upon statute anect1ng the
performance of its duties is not likely
to be questioned. especially when it has
become established by long usage and
relates to matters of form only But
practical construction must not be al
lowed to defeat the manifest purpose of
the statute When in the performance
Of executive daty it. becomes necessary
for the executive department to con-
strue a statute great Difference is al
legation is increased by the lapse OF
considerable time before its acts are
called in question
Again bearing upon this same aues-
ton, the Michigan court says When.
in the performance of executive duty.
it becomes necessary for the executive
department. to construe statute great
differences IS always due to its judg-
ment and the obligation IS increased by
the lapse OF considerable time before its
acts are called in question This has
been several times held by the federal
supreme court and by the subordinate
courts of the federal system and a ref
erenee to few OF the cases VIII be
sufficient
Il read these decisions for the DUR
pose of showing that when the defend
| ant company came into the state and
attempted to do business it came in
ney generals Office claimed It had to do
| in order to transact business in the
/ state, and did not wilfuIly trample IN
der foot the laws of our state
| The next question we come to is the
| question OF estopDeL Is the state es-
| topped by its conduct? As shown by
| these authorities we must treat the
state the same as if it was an individ-
| questioning the validity of this con-
| tract2 According to the evidence In this
I case, before making its bid the Ameri-
/ can Book company inquired at the at
! torney generals Office as to what it
| should do and received the attorney
/ generals construction of the statute,
and after the bid had been made and
accepted again the attorney general 9
office advised what should be done. The
| legal representative of the state was
| directing what steps should be taken by
/ the defendant COMPANY in order to
make its contract valid According to
the evidence the defendant company
did everything that the legal executive
branch Of the state required it should
! do and entered into contract, and this
was under the construction that had
been placed upon the law by that office
| long before After the supreme court
had decided in the quo warrauto pro-
| ceeding that the defendant company
was not legally doing business in the
state and o1sted It, then, according to
the evidence in this case, for the purpose
American Book COMPANY went to the
charter board and that board received
its money and placed 1t IN the state
treasury for the purpose of allowing the
contract The state received that mon
ey from the defendant company, know
ing that the money was paid for the
purpose OF validating this contract, ane
the state has kept that money. Car
| it now be heard to say. after it has
received the money from the company
| to validate this contract that it caY
keep that money and then go into 8
court OF equity and challenge the vail
dity of the contractZ Let US apply Il
the state some of the rules OF estoppe
that we apply to an individual
"sIn the 18th Federal Reporter, in dis
cussing this question, the court says
sResoIute good faith should character
| ize the conduct of states in their deal
ings with individuals, and there is NJ
|. reason in morals or law that will eI
empt them from the doctrine Of estop
! | pei So we find that the law of estop
, pei APPLIES to states as well as to indi
vfduaIs-
Again the New York court. In passin'
upon this question, has said: The stat
| judged and must abide by the same rule
, which govern in similar cases between n
comes before the court the rights and oh
liga lions OF the contracting parties will b
| Judged upon the same principles as j
sons This was a case where they wer
applying the law Of estoppel
the American Book company had not com
piled with the law sufficiently to permi
1t to do business in the state, it then di
| comply and was admitted, and did al tn
: things required to be done.
, Now. l. this contract that was entere
| into absolutely void2 Some OF the writer
: | seem to think that there is a conflict a
. irrecDneila BILE conflict. among the author.
ties upon this question But I do not 5
understand it After taking these case
and reading them and examining tn
| opinions I believe that there is no cor
f1ict of authority There may be confiit
J in the mere dicrum in the opinions hu
: there is no conflict in the opinions their
selves + remembered that
all these cases where there is an appal
: emit conflict the court was deciding a cas-
] under the peculiar language OF the sta
. ute IT the state where the question aros
. Wide the statutes in general way II
la.e to the same subject. and In many II
zfaEces cover the subject enrirel,
= yet the statutes themselves are suhstar
, TALLY different, and it il on account
J that difference that there is this appal
= emit conflict in the authorities on tn
: question We find statutes such as thu
!, Of Illinois, where the legislature not oni