The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1902-09-04
BOOK TRUST WINS
Judge Hazen Decides for Amer
ican Book Company.
Denies Application for Tenn
porary Injunction.
CONTRACT is NOT VOID.
Violation of Anti Trust Law Is
Not Proven.
Company Complies With Rul-
ings Of Attorney General.
Case Will Be Appealed to the
Supreme Court.
CONTRACT is NOT VOID.

Judge Hazen this morning refused to
grant the temporary Injunction asked
for by County Attorney Galen Nichols
to prevent the American Book company
from carrying out its contract with the
state textbook commission.
The restraining order issued by Pro-
bate Judge Pagan during the absence OF
Judge HaZen was dissolved. The case
will be taken to the supreme court.
The temporary Injunction was asked
for on the grounds that the contract
between the commission and the COM
pany was void because the company had
not complied with the state laws Tho
court held that If the contract was void
there was no necessity of going into
court. He held that if it was void there
was no contract
The court held that the state has no
superior right over individuals in re-
gard to the carrying out or annulling
of contract. He held that as the
charter board had accepted the fee from
the American Book company, passed on
the right of the company to do business
III the state and then turned the fee
into the state treasury, that the COM
pany had acted in good faith upon the
decision of the charter board
In delivering his opinion Judge Hazen
said: ''On the 5th day of May the school
book commission entered into a CONTRACT
by which the American Book company
agreed to furnish certain books to the
schools of this state for five years. This
suit is brought by the state to annul
can Book company from carrying out
this contract. 1t is claimed that when
the contract was made the American
Book company had no right to do bust
ness in this state and tkat therefore the
contract is void. That is the principal
contention. Some evidence has been sub
mitted. but the questions for the court
to decide are legal questions on matters
of fact. The first question to be consid-
cred is whether this is an action wherein
an injunction will lie. l think the law Is
well settled that the court must feel
that iniur-r will follow if the injunction
does not fie What injury will the state
suffer if the American Book company
is allowed to CARR out the contract?
One question is how shall tie state
be treated in regard to the contract ?''s
Judge Fazen cited authorizes holding
that tie state would eb insffle same po-
sition as an individual in a contract.
Continuing Judge Hazen said: The
state has no superior right over the in
dividual in regard to contract w,len
it comes into court. The neyt question
of Importance is the determination of
the question as what effect the opinion
of the attorney general has regarding
the contract. The state is now in a
court of equity. There is a difference
between a party puroosely or thought
lessly disregarding a state law. In this
case the evidence shows that before
American Book company entered into
this contract it had gone to the at
torney general and he had Indicated
his construction o. TIE law and what
it would be necessary for tie company
to DO to come into the state. The COM
pany was dealing with state boards and
these boards have to refer to the attor-
ney general for the construction of the
law. Noccrding to the evidence they
did what the attorney general indicated
they SHOULD do. TIE supreme court de-
cided in conflict with the attorney gem
eral. ! mention these things to show
that the company was not willfully dis
regarding the state law.
When the defendant company came
into the state they came in and dill
what the attorney generals Office said
they should 90.
''The next question is. Is. the state
estopped from questioning this con-