Case Name: State ex rel Collins, Attorney-General, v. Standard Construction Co. et al.
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1918-03
Citations: 118 Miss. 469
Docket Number: 
Parties: State ex rel Collins, Attorney-General, v. Standard Construction Co. et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Mississippi Reports
Volume: 118
Pages: 469–493

Head Matter:
State ex rel Collins, Attorney-General, v. Standard Construction Co. et al.
[78 South. 625,
In Banc.]
Appeal and Error. Dismissal. Want of controversy.
By chapter 112, Laws 1916, the approval of the plans and specifications, by which the interior of the old capital was to be overhauled, changed, and constructed, rested solely with the Capital Commission; so that its approval of the plans and specifications by which the contractor was working, removes all grounds for relief in a suit pending to enjoin such construction, and necessitates a dismissal of the plaintiff’s appeal.
Appeal from the chancery court of Hinds county.
Hoh. O. B. Taylor, Chancellor.
Bill for induction by the state of Mississippi on the relation of Boss A. Collins, Attorney-General, against the Standard Construction Company and others. From a judgment desolving a temporary injunction and dismissing the bill, complainant appeals.
This is an appeal from a decree dissolving an injunction and dismissing the bill of complaint exhibited by the attorney-genera.1 against the Governor and the state revenue agent as members of the Capitol Commission, Tlheo. C. Link, the supervising architect of, and J. H. Semmes, doing business under the name of' the Standard Construction Company, who had contracted with the commission to repair, the old capitol. The other members .of the Capitol Commission are the secretary of state and the insurance commissioner. The bill of complaint, omitting the caption thereof, is as follows:
“Your complainant, state of Mississippi, on the relation of Boss A. Collins, Attorney-Generay, respectfully shows that at the 19lé session of the legislature of the state of Mississippi, chapter 112 of the Laws of 1910, entitled, ‘An act authorizing the Capitol Commission to repair the old capitol building and to change its interior for state offices and relieve the congestion of the overcrowded new capitol,’ was duly enacted. Said act placed the supervision of the work of restoration of the old capitol building in the Capitol Commission composed of the Governor, the secretary of state, the insurance commissioner, and the revenue agent, which offices are held by Theo. G. Bilbo, J. W. Power, T. M. Henry, and Stokes V. Robertson, respectively, and the said commission, by virtue of the. authority given by the said act, employed Theo. C. Link, of St. Louis, Mo., for the purpose of preparing plans and specifications to repair the old capitol building.
“Complainant shows that by the terms of said act .the said commission was directed to so repair and restore the old capitol and to change the interior thereof for the purpose of providing additional offices for the state officers, and thereby relieve the congestion of the overcrowded new capitol, and for the further purpose of affording a safe and adequate repository for a portion of our state records; and said act further provides that the interior of said old capitol building shall be reconstructed and the space made into rooms suitable for the state officers and for the preservation of state records.
“In accordance with the purpose of said act, the said Capitol Commission employed Theo. C. Link, of St. Louis, Mo., who, in the preparation of the plans and specifications haying in mind the intention of the legislature, who had employed him to investigate and report on the feasibility of restoring the old capitol, and also having in mind the instructions of the said Capitol Commission, made and submitted plans, showing the second floor of said building for the Department of Archives and History and the Hall of Fame and repository for state records .'and suitable rooms for the preservation of state documents. Sheet No. 2 of series 1, 2, and 3 of said plans, revised August 21, 1916, is hereto attached and made Exhibit A to this bill. This series of sheets constitute the floor plans and drawings which the commission adopted and on which all work was done and all contracts let. Complainant further states that said sheet shows' that the second floor is set apart for the use of the Department of Archives and History and the preservation of state documents and the repositories of state records, reference being made to Exhibit A for more detailed averments as to the arrangement.
“Complaint further shows that the restoration of the old capitol and the arrangement of the second floor was an endeavor on the part of the Capitol Commission and the said architect to carry out the sentiment and impelling motive for the reconstruction of said old capitol by preserving it as an historical landmark; the exterior to be left as nearly as possible intact, and the interior to be arranged so as to afford a repository for such historical documents, relios, portraits, and manuscripts that mark the historical progress of Mississippi, both as a territory and as a. state.
“On the - day of February, 1917, bids were asked for on the restoration if the old capitol work by A. S. Coody, secretary of the commission, said bids to be opened on February 23, 1917, a copy of said notice being hereto attached and marked ‘¡Exhibit B’ to this bill. On February 23, 1917, the Old Capitol Commission awarded a. contract to the Standard Construction Company of Meridian, Miss., with J. H. Semines, sole owner, for the sum of thirty thousand, one hundred and seven dollars and sixteen cenj;s, to complete the work of restoration of the old capitol as provided in the plans and specifications, the floor plans being sheets Nos. 1,. 2, and 3, dated August 21, 1916, heretofore filed as Exhibit A, and which were the plans by which all the work had heretofore been done both by convicts and contractors, and were the plans upon which the contracts to the Standard Construction Company was let. A copy' of said contract between the Standard Construction Company and the Capitol Commission is hereto attached and marked ‘Exhibit C’ and made a part of this bill.
“Complainant further shows that the said contractor is now working on the second floor of said old capitol building, but is not doing the work on said second floor in accordance with the plans and drawings and specifications adopted by this commission and the one upon which the contract was let, reference being made to Exhibit A as to the requirements of the plans of the second floor of the said building, but is doing the work in an entirely different manner in the way of arrangement of space and partitions, walls, windows, doors, wiring, etc., in utter disregard of the plans adopted by the commission, and in violation of the provisions of said contract, with the result that the letter and spirit of chapter 112 of the Laws of 1916 cannot be carried out with reference to the location of the Department of Archives and History, the repositories for state records and the preservation of the documents and relies of Mississippi’s history.
“Your complainant further shows that T. Mi. Henry and J. W. Power, two of the four members of the said Capitol Commission having in charge the restoration of this work, have requested the attorney-general, as the chief law officer of the state, to take the necessary legal steps to prevent an unlawful modification of the plans of the commission prepared in accordance with the intention of the ■ legislature. Complainant also states, on information and belief, that Theo. G-. Bilbo and Stokes V. Robertson, the two remaining members of the commission, and Theo. C. Link, architect, are directing the said contractor to do the restoration work on the said second floor not according to the plans adopted by the commission and upon which the contract was let, but in utter violation and disregard of an order of the Capitol Commission passed on the 20th day of April, 1917, in which the said contractor was notified to do no further work on partitions on the second floor of the old Capitol build ing until further notice, .a. copy of said order being hereto attached and marked ‘¡Exhibit D’ to this bill. .
“Complainant further shows that the said contractor and the architect were notified of this action by the secretary of the commission, and that Jos. W. Power and T. M. Henry, two of the members of the said Capitol Commission, stated to the said architect and the said contractor that, if they continued and persisted in the work in violation of the plans and specifications and drawings therefore adopted, they would vote against the allowance of any estimate to the contractor or commission to the architect.
“Complainant further shows to the court that the said contractor, acting under the advice and instructions of the said Theo. Gf. Bilbo and Stokes V. Robertson and Theo. C. Link in doing the work on an entirely different plan than that adopted by the commission, is thereby increasing the cost, violating his contract, disregarding the legislative enactment for restoration, is doing an irreparable damage to the state, and is creating a situation for which there is no. adequate remedy at law.
“Complainant further shows unto the court that it is not the intention of the attorney-general’s office, in complying with the request of two members of the Capitol Commission in taking legal steps to prevent further damage to the state, to retard in any degree this most laudable undertaking, but, on the contrary, the desire of this department is to hasten the conclusion of the work in accordance with the plans of the commission and the desire of the people of Mississippi, speaking through its. legislature, by endeavoring to prevent the doing of the work in an entirely different manner than that contracted for by the commission and provided for by the legislature at an increased and unnecessary cost.
“Wherefore, the premises considered, complainant prays the court that a temporary injunction be issued, restraining the Standard Construction Company and J. H. Semmes, sole owner thereof, and all its employees engaged in the work on the old capitol building, and Theo. G. Bilbo and Stokes V. Robertson, members of the Capitol Commission, and Theo. C. Link, architect, from taking any further steps or doing any further work on said second floor not in accord with ■ the plans and drawings shown by Exhibit A to this bill, and that on final hearing of this cause that said temporary injunction may be made perpetual,- and that ail proper orders be entered and process issue for the abovenamed defendants, and that they be required to answer this bill of complaint, answer under oath being waived, returnable to the next term of the chancery court of the First district of Hinds county, Miss.
“And, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
“Respectfully submitted.
“Ross- A. Collins, Attorney General.”
The resolution of the Capitol Commission, directing the contractor to cease work on the building, referred to in the bill of complaint- as Exhibit D thereto, recites that:
On “motion by Mr. Henry, duly seconded by Mr. Power, that the contractor be notified to do no further work on partitions on the second floor of old capitol building, until further notice. Those voting aye: Mr. Henry (Insurance Commissioner) and Mr. Power (Secretary of State). Those voting no: Mr. Robertson (State Revenue Agent).”
A temporary injunction was granted in accordance with the prayer of the bill of complaint.
The answer of the defendants, among other things, sets forth that:
The “defendants answer further, and deny that the floor plans dated August 21, 1916, and marked ‘Exhibit A’ to complainants’ bill were ever approved by said commission, and deny that any work has been performed according to these plans and drawings, or any contract awarded to let based upon the floor plans filed as Exhibit A. to complainants’ bill. But defendants /charge and aver that the contract with the defendant J, H. Semmes was awarded by said Capitol Commission on the plans dated January 1, 1917, and the same are filed herewith and marked ‘Exhibit (1) ’ to this bill, and that the said contract was awarded on the specifications filed herewith and marked ‘Exhibit (2) ’ to this answer.
“Defendants further answer and deny that the legislature ever expressed an intent that the Department of Archives and History should be placed ■ in the old capitol building, or that such words as ‘the interior be arranged so as to afford a repository for such historical documents, relics, portraits and manuscripts that mark the historical progress of Mississippi,'both as territory and a state,’ are found in chapter 112 of the Laws of 1916, as charged in complainants’ bill; but, on the other hand, the act says that ‘the interior shall be reconstructed and the space made into suitable rooms, for offices of the state, and for repositories for such portions of the state records that the same may be preserved,’ and that the intent of the legislative act as indicated by the title is to relieve the congestion of the overcrowded new capitol.
“Defendants answer further, and deny that the contract Which was awarded to the Standard Construction Company was based upon the plans dated August 21, 1916, and filed as Exhibit A, by complainant, but defendants aver that the contract was awarded to the said Standard Construction Company on a set of plans and drawings entirely different, and which is filed herewith as Exhibit (1) as aforesaid, and the specifications as Exhibit (2).
.“Defendants answer further, and deny that any work has been done by other contractors or by con victs in accordance with the plans filed by complainant as Exhibit A, or that said! plans have ever been considered by the contractor, with reference to any actual construction.
“Defendants answer further, and deny that the work being done at the time this injunction was issued was being done in violation of the contract between the Capitol Commission and the Standard Construction Company, but aver that all work which has been done by the said company has been done in accordance with the plans and specifications embodied in the contract and made a part thereof and filed herewith as Exhibits (1) and (2).
“Defendants answer further, and deny that any work is being done, or has been done, in or on the old capitol building in violation of the provisions of chapter 112 of the Laws of 1916, or in violation of any contract, or of any valid order of the Capitol Commission or of the architect.
“Defendants answer further, and deny that the said Stokes V. Robertson and Theo. G-. Bilbo, or either of them, have ever directed, or advised or requested any contractor to do any work in violation of any law or of any contract or any valid order of the commission, as charged by complainant, but have at all times insisted on all contracts being performed according to law and the provisions of the contract, and they aver that they have specially insisted that the Standard Construction Company carry on its work in strict accordance with the terms and conditions of its contract, as prepared by the instructions of the Capitol Commission and signed by all four members thereof, in the presence of witnesses.”
The statute referred to in the bill of complaint as chapter 112, Laws of 1916, is as follows:
“Be it enacted by the legislature of the state of Mississippi, that the Capitol Commission be, and they are hereby authorized to preserve and repair the old capítol 'building, and to overhaul, change, and so construct the interior so as to furnish suitable rooms and offices for some of the state officers, and for repositories for a portion of our state records.
“Sec. 2. That it shall be the duty of said commission, as soon as practicable, to employ a suitable architect to furnish plans and specifications to repair the old capitol building. That the exterior of the said building shall be preserved, but the interior shall be reconstructed and the space made into suitable rooms for offices of the state, and for . . . such! portions of the state records that the same may be preserved.
“Sec. 3. That the commissioners may, at their discretion, employ a contractor who shall execute the work under the direction and supervision of said architect, and with the approval of said commission, and the architect and. contractor so employed shall be paid out of the amount appropriated for this purpose. And upon the order of the .Governor, the Auditor shall issue his warrant on the state treasurer for the same, and in like manner shall the material and labor be paid for, upon the recommendation of the architect. That the board of control of the penitentiary shall furnish the brick needed for such construction as far as possible and furnish convicts and teams to haul said brick, and also to furnish convicts and teams to do all such labor as -they can properly ■ perform, and the penitentiary shall receive credit for the same.
“And the total cost to the state of Mississippi of such work of preservation and repair, exclusive of convict labor and brick furnished by the penitentiary, shall not in any event exceed the sum of one hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars appropriated for this purpose.
“Sec. 4. That this act take effect and be in force from and after its passage.
“Approved April 8, 1916.”
After the granting of the temporary injunction and before the final hearing, the secretary of state, one of the two commissioners on whose request this suit is alleged to ha,ve been begun, filed a motion, praying the court below “to dismiss said cause . . . and dissolve and revoke the writs of injunction issued therein,” but the record discloses no ruling thereon. On the final hearing, at which considerable parol evidence was introduced by both sides, a decree was rendered, dissolving the injunction and dismissing the bill of complaint, from which decree this appeal is taken.
The chancellor declined to permit his decree to be superseded by the appeal, whereupon an application for a supersedeas was made to and refused by this court. When the cause came on to be heard by us in due course, appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that no real controversy is now presented thereby because of the adoption by the Capitol Commission after the appeal was taken of the following resolution:
“Whereas, on November 10, 1916, this commission passed an order requiring all plans and specifications to be approved by the commission and signed by the commission and the architect before bids are invited; and whereas, the plans and specifications for the restoration of the old capitol building dated January 1, 1917, are a part of the contract of the Standard Construction Company, which contract has been signed by each member of this commission and approved by the architect, thereby carrying out the intent of said order of November 10, 1916; and whereas, this commission passed an order on April 20, 1917, directing the contractor, the Standard Construction Company, to do no further work on the second floor partitions until further notice; and whereas, it was intended that this order was to be in force and effect only and until the return of the Governor and a. meeting of the commission could be had; and whereas, the commission desires to embody in its records and minutes the true intent and purpose in the two orders referred to and in said contact and the plans and specifications forming a part thereof: Therefore, he it resolved, that the plans and specifications for the restoration of the old capitol building dated January 1, 1917, and made a part of the contract with the Standard Construction Company and attached as Exhibits Nos. 1, and 2 to defendants’ answer in the case of State of Mississippi ex rel. Ross A. Collins, Attorney-General v. Standard Construction Company et al., be and the same are hereby expressly approved, and also all work done in accordance with the same.
“Resolved, further, that the order of April 20, 1917, is hereby' declared as being void from and after April 30, 1917, the date of a meeting of the Capitol Commission, and all work done by the said Standard Construction Company on the second floor partitions of the old capitol building, in occordance with the plans and specifications for the restoration of the old capitol building, dated January 1, 1917, and made a part of the contract with the said Standard Construction Company, is hereby ratified and expressly approved. ’ ’
The minutes of the commission recite that:
“On the question of adoption of the resolution there were, yeas: G-ovemor Bilbo, Mr. Power, Secretary of State, and Mr. Robertson, State Revenue Agent; nays: None.”
Since the adoption of this resolution the repairs on the old capitol have apparently been completed for th'e offices therein, including those on the floor thereof here in controversy, are now occupied by state officers.
Earl N. Floyd, Assistant Attorney-General, for appellant.
Clayton D. Potter and F, V, Brahan, for appellees.

Opinion:
Smith, C. J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
(After stating the facts as above). By chapter 112, Laws of 1916, the approval of the plans and specifications, by which the interior of the old capitol was to be overhauled, changed, and constructed, rested solely with the Capitol Commission, so that its approval of the plans and specifications by which the contractor was working when this suit was begun removes all controversy relative thereto, and neither an affirmance nor a reversal of the decree of the court below will now serve any good purpose, from which it follows that appellees' motion to dismiss the appeal must be and is sustained. McDaniel v. Hurt, 92 Miss. 197, 41 So. 381; Pafhausen v. State, 94 Miss. 103, 47 So. 897; State v. Jones, 107 Miss. 462, 65 So. 511; Whidden v. Broadus, 108 Miss. 664, 67 So. 155; Lockard v. Hoy, 113 Miss. 238, 74 So. 137.
The dismissal of this appeal is, of course, without prejudice to any right which the Department of Archives and History may have to quarters in the old capitol; that question not being here involved.
Sustained.