State Board of Administration v. Roquemore
218 Ala. 120, 1928 Ala. LEXIS 191, 117 So. 757 (1928)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A writ of mandamus is the appropriate remedy to compel a public official to pay for goods purchased and accepted under a contract, as the duty to pay becomes a non-discretionary, ministerial act once the contract is fully executed by delivery and acceptance, especially when no other adequate legal remedy exists.
Facts:
- The State Highway Department ordered a specific quality of hay from the petitioner for the maintenance of its livestock.
- The petitioner delivered the hay to the highway department's camp.
- An agent for the department initially expressed rejection of the hay.
- Despite the initial rejection, the hay was unloaded, stored in the department's feed tent, and subsequently used as its own property.
- After accepting and using the hay, the highway department refused to approve the petitioner's claim for payment.
Procedural Posture:
- The petitioner, a seller of goods, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the circuit court (trial court) against the respondents, officials of the State Highway Department.
- Respondents filed a demurrer to the petition, which the trial court overruled.
- The case proceeded to a hearing on the merits based on the petition and the respondents' general denial of its allegations.
- The trial court found in favor of the petitioner and issued the writ of mandamus, ordering the respondents to pay the claim.
- The respondents (appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Alabama.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a writ of mandamus lie to compel a state highway department to approve and pay for supplies that it ordered, and which were subsequently delivered and accepted, when the duty to pay becomes ministerial rather than discretionary upon acceptance of the goods?
Opinions:
Majority - Somerville, J.
Yes, a writ of mandamus lies to compel the department to pay. Once a public body gives an order for materials and accepts delivery, its discretion is exhausted, and the duty to approve the claim and render payment becomes a mandatory, ministerial act. State law requires the department to pay for supplies from the highway fund, a mandate intended to protect vendors who cannot sue the state due to sovereign immunity. Mandamus is designed to prevent a failure of justice where a clear right exists but no other adequate remedy is available. By actually using the hay, the department conclusively accepted it and waived any right to reject, transforming the claim from one for breach of contract to one for money due upon a fully executed contract. Therefore, compelling payment through mandamus is the appropriate remedy.
Analysis:
This case establishes a critical protection for vendors who contract with government entities protected by sovereign immunity. It clarifies that a government agency's discretion ends upon the acceptance of goods, converting the subsequent duty to pay into a ministerial function. By doing so, the decision makes the extraordinary writ of mandamus available as a remedy for what is essentially a breach of contract, preventing the state from unjustly enriching itself. This precedent ensures that government bodies cannot use their immunity to avoid contractual obligations after receiving the benefit of a seller's performance, thereby upholding the integrity of public contracts.
