Con P. Curran Printing Co. v. City of St. Louis
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Moses N. Sale, Judge. (1) The remedy resorted to in this action is wrong. On plaintiff’s theory it should have proceeded by mandamus.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Moses N. Sale, Judge. (1) The remedy resorted to in this action is wrong. On plaintiff’s theory it should have proceeded by mandamus. The petition alleges a valid contract, fully performed by .plaintiff, an appropriation unexpended sufficient to cover the contract price, approval and certificate (voucher) of City Register, (a) Such facts, if established, entitled the plaintiff to a writ to compel the Auditor to draw his warrant. High’s Extraordinary Legal Remedies (3 Ed.), sec. 94, pp. 104, 105; State v. Barker, 4 Kan. 379; State ex rel. v.…
1Opinion of the CourtGantt, J.
This is an action to recover $6,375, the contract price for printing the “Mayor’s Message and Accompanying Documents,” pursuant to a contract between the Con P. Curran Printing Company and the city of St. Louis, made November 25, 1902, under the provisions of article 15 of the charter and chapter 26 of the General Ordinances, 1907, of the city of St. Louis.
The register of the city of St. Louis has general supervision of and executes all contracts for the public printing of that city.. Section 2 of article fifteen *30of the charter provides: f ‘ The annual message of the mayor and reports of the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- People ex rel. Casserly v. FitchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1851
- State ex rel. Ackerman v. DahlWisconsin Supreme Court · 1886
- Auditor ex rel. State v. WoodruffSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1839
- Taylor v. AuditorSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1840
3Cited by1 opinion
- St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Van RaalteMissouri Court of Appeals · 1924