Court Opinion

ID: 9585327
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:59:11.033972+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:38:48.726845
License: Public Domain

Berry, President,
concurring:
I concur in the majority opinion in this case because there is neither pleading nor proof to support the statements contained in the petitioner’s brief relative to the Odorite Service & Supply Company, Morgantown, West Virginia, the Crown Supply Company, Inc., South Charleston, West' Virginia, and the Ohio Valley Supply Company, Huntington, *195West Virginia, jointly combining and conspiring with regard to bids submitted for the products involved in this case and that Crown Supply Company and the Ohio Valley Supply Company were one and the same, in violation of Code, 5A-3-38, as amended. Had there been proper pleading or proof to support such statements in the brief, I am of the opinion that it may have warranted the granting of the writ. The omission of supporting evidence or allegation in the pleading not denied cannot afford relief in any case.
Another reason, in my opinion, for denying the writ in this case is because the Commissioner of Finance and Administration was not made a party to the proceeding, which, I think, would be necessary before any relief could be granted. I do not agree with the statement in the majority opinion that: “Inasmuch as the contract signed by the Director is a valid contract and will not be disturbed, it is unnecessary to consider or determine whether the Commissioner of Finance and Administration is a necessary party to this proceeding and no opinion is entertained or expressed on that question in the decision of this case.” There is no authorization in the law for such contract to be signed by the Director but it is clearly provided in the law applicable thereto that all such contracts shall be signed by the Commissioner in the name of the State and be approved as to form by the Attorney General. Code, 5A-3-15, as amended. See my dissenting opinion in the case of Hercules Tire Company v. Truman Gore, Director of Finance and Administration, (Filed February 28, 1968). In the Hercules case the Commissioner had refused to sign the contract and the extraordinary proceeding in mandamus instituted in this Court was to compel him to sign it.
This question was not raised in the case of State ex rel. Printing-Litho Inc. v. Wilson, 147 W. Va. 415, 128 S. E. 2d 449, and the contract had not been signed by the Commissioner of Finance and Administration and the writ was not granted in that case.
For the reasons stated herein, I concur with the result of the majority opinion but I do not agree with some of the statements contained therein.