Skip to main content
· 1/15/1871

People ex rel. Chatterton v. Secretary of State

Citations

  • 58 Ill. 90

Syllabus

<p>I. Conte.acts with the State—construction of a pm'ticular acceptance of a proposal. The State of Illinois entered into a contract withC for 3,000 reams of printing paper, to be furnished by him to sample; and the acceptance of his proposal was as follows: “ This award is for 3,000 reams, and an)r further quantity which may be needed or required by the State of Illinois, in the public printing, including all matters consequent upon the action of the 26th General Assembl)rHeld, that the terms of this acceptance did not confer upon the legislature the power to alter or rescind the contract; that it only gave to that body authority over any additional quantity that might be required.</p> <p>2. Mandamus—of the pleadings. And in a proceeding by mandamus, to compel the auditor of public accounts to issue, and the State treasurer to countersign and pay, a warrant for the amount due on the property received by the State, under said contract, an answer by the respondents that there is no money in the treasury with which to pay for the same, is not a bar to the proceeding.</p> <p>3. Had the petition alone prayed for a writ to compel the payment of said money by the treasurer, in that case, an answer that there was no money in the treasury for such purpose, would constitute a bar.</p> <p>4. Same—writ will he allowed—to compel the proper officer to issue warrant for money due for property received. As to the property received under the contract, it was the duty of the auditor to issue a warrant for the amount due therefor, and of the treasurer to countersign and deliver it to the person entitled to receive it, whether there was money in tire treasury or not, for its payment, the same to be paid when funds were provided for that purpose ; and for that, a peremptory writ will be awarded.</p> <p>5. Contracts with the State—award of—must he made in compliance with statute. But in such case, it appearing that C was not the lowest bidder, and that the said contract was awarded to h

Judges: Walker

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.