Effingham v. Hamilton

Citations

• 68 Miss. 523

Syllabus

<p>1. Mandamos. Private rights. Judicial discretion.</p> <p>The granting of the writ of mandamus to enforce merely private rights is a matter of sound legal discretion, and, notwithstanding a clear legal right and the absence of a legal remedy, it may he refused if .circumstances make it unwise and inexpedient to grant it.</p> <p>2. Same. Schools. Text-hooks. Acts 1890. Public interests.</p> <p>The act of February 22, 1890 (Laws, p. 86), providing for a uniform series of text-books in public schools, was intended for the benefit and protection of the people and not of book publishers, and where the latter seek to enforce by mandamus their rights growing out of said statute, the court, having discretion as to granting the writ, may subordinate their right to the public good in proper cases and refuse the writ.</p> <p>3. Same. Sight of publishers. Mandamus. Case in judgment.</p> <p>A committee appointed under said act of February 22, 1890, to adopt textbooks for a county, made selection of books published by plaintiffs, but the county superintendent of education refused to contract therefor, as required by the statute. Afterwards another committee was convened, and, without authority, adopted other books, and the superintendent contracted with other publishers, whose books were introduced in the schools. Plaintiffs applied for mandamus to compel the superintendent to contract with them. Held, that, notwithstanding the clear legal right of plaintiffs, and the unlawful conduct of the superintendent, the writ was properly refused, since to allow it would seriously affect public interests by changing the books in use.</p>