Court Opinion

ID: 9807505
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:07:38.928526+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:40:57.069842
License: Public Domain

ClaRK, L,
concurring. I concur in the decision not only for the reason given in the opinion of the Court that the contract was not reduced to writing as required by the statute, but because if it had been the condition of the plaintiff would have been no better, since in no aspect could the action be maintained, the complaint not stating a cause of action and the Court having no jurisdiction. Clearly the remedy asked of a mandamus to the defendants to compel them to sign and deliver the contract could not be entertained, for they had no part in the transaction, and their signatures if affixed would have no validity, except as a legislative committee acting by authority of and in behalf of the Legislature, and the *795Court could issue no mandamus to compel that body to perform any act or to compel its committee to act after the General Assembly, as in this ease, had by statute revoked the committee’s authority to sign the contract with the plaintiff, by directing them to sign a contract for the printing with another party. ' Even if the contract had been signed and delivered, the contract drafted by plaintiff for signature by the committee and that afterwards signed by them and delivered to Edwards & Broughton both recite that it is a contract “between the State of North Carolina, through the joint committee on printing of the General Assembly of the one part” and the printers named, of the second part. As the Legislature subsequently by legislative act directed the committee to make a contract with Edwards & Broughton, even if a valid contract had been perfected with the plaintiff, no Court, State or Federal, could render a judgment compelling the State to perform the contract with the plaintiff. Indeed such order for specific performance could be entered against no one for breach of such contract, but the remedy is an action for damages, which in the case of the State must be sought by petition in this Court (Const. Art. IV, Section 9), and in the case of other than the State, in the lower Court. Neither in such cases would an injunction lie, as asked in this case, by the first contractor against the second. There being a remedy at law equitable relief could not be granted.
A somewhat similar case was Clements v. The State, 77 N. C., 143, except that in that case the contract broken by the State had been duly made and perfected. The authorities are referred to in the most recent case in regard to actions against the State. Garner v. Worth, 122 N. C., 250.