The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1886-05-21

taxes sufficient to meet and defray the
estimated expenses of supporting and
relieving the poor"
Tax for roads and bridges of one and
$40 mills legal.
See revision of 1878, p. 293, sec. SO,
gives the County Commissioners general
supervision of county roads and gives
them power to appropriate such sums
of money from the county treasury as
otherwise improving not exceeding in
any one year the sum of 81 600 for each
$500, 600 of assessed valuation of real es-
tate i'm said county.
Taxable valuation of real estate for
year 1885 is *, 6ll ,430 which would have
entitled the County Commissioners to
have appropriated $l3 600 for roads and
bridges. See % MINI. 356 Board of
County Com. of st. Louis county vs Net
Teton; IA MINI. 257 Mccormick vs
Fitch constituting: "county purposes" to
include only the ordinary expenses of
the county, an authority to expend not
exceeding one thousand dollars, confers
power to levy separate tax for that pur-
pose.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Saturday morning the judges render
ed the following decision:
This is motion on behalf ofthe plain
tiff for temporary injunction restrain
ing the defendant, as prayed for in his
complaint, and the same came on to be
heard this day before the undersigned
judges, sitting together by the agree
ment of the respective parties on order
| to show cause.
After hearing the proofs and allega-
| tons of the respective parties and argu-
ments of counsel thereon, and having
| duly considered the same, 1t is ordered
that a temporary Injunction issue out of
and under the seal of this court, upon
the plaintiffs giving an injunction bond
with the conditions prescribed by law in
the sum offive hundred dollars, restrain
| ing and enjoining the defendants during
the tendency of this action from enter
ing into any contract for the construc-
ton of any part thereof, by which any
pecuniary liability on the part of said
Blue Earth county shall be incurred ex-
ceeding the sum of $23 600; that within
the said limits the defendant is at liberty
for the construction of the foundation or
other part of said courthouse, or other
county buildings, as it may see fit, and
that so much of the original restraining
order inconsistent with this permission,
is hereby vacated and discharged.
Dated May II, 1856.
Nj. j. SEVERANCE,
Judge of District Court, 9th District
CHAs. nj. START,
Judge of District Court, Sd District
MEMORANDUM.
l. So much of the plaintiffs motion
as asks for an injunction To restrain the
collection of the taxes levied upon his
property pending the action must be
, denied, for the reason that il is no nee
essary for the protection of his rights
, oinjury can result to him by the de-
NAL. The taxes have already been lev
led, and an injunction cannot remove
the cloud if thew are cloud. The
: court has full power on the final hearing
to grant the plaintiff such and all the
relief he shall show himself Untitled to
: Again, when the county takes steps 4
obtain judgment, the plaintiff can ther
make his defense.
: I'd. The defendant is charged by law
with the duty of providing a suitable
courthouse, Jail and Offices for county
officers, with vaults for the preservation
of the records and papers belonging
thereto. Ii. 5. 1873, oh. s, sections So an(
| 10, and ch. 40 sec. /.
{ Ii is for the county commissioners act
, ing as board, to determine whether OF
, not the present court house, jail, county
} offices and vaults are safe and suitable
and if not 10 provide for others. 1t is ,
matter committed to their discretion
| which the courts cannot control eXcep
5 in case ola gross and palpable abuse
) The proof submitted on this motor
f show no abuse of discretion on the par
of the defendant. 1t is then question
2 not of discretion, but of power. 1t il
g substantially admitted that the defen
a dant intends to proceed to let a con
= tract for the building of courthouse a
cost approximating $4,000.
5 Has the defendant power to incur {
e pecuniary liability on the part of the
r county ut this time for this sum? We
4 have reached the conclusion that sec
: ia, chapter IL. Ii. 5. 1873, as construed
l by the supreme court i'll the case Of
, Johnson VS. Becker Co., q Mimi, "a
answers the question in the negative
; and that the defendant cannot let any
f contract whereby it will be necessary t.
levya tax for county purposes exceed
ing five mills OH the dollar. Within this
, limit the defendant has u right to pro-
coed. 1t may proceed TO levy tax each
J year within the limit and accumulate {
sufficient fund to pay for building. and
then let the contract, or it may proceed
, with the work each year so far as the lin
itation will permit. For the purpose o.
determining the limit to which the de-
) PENDANT may go the present year We have
assumed, without deciding it, that the
! poor and bridge levy was for county pur
poses, then by reducing the courthouse
: levy pro rata with the levies for other
county purposes, and adding to the bal
ance the amount of the courthouse FUND
: now on hand from taxes of previon.
year, We reach the limit beyond which
5 the defendant cannot maintain liability
the present year. We exclude from the
/ computation the item of 81, 600 interest
on bridge bonds, as it is clear that this il
special tax, and not included within
. the five mill limit.
, NJ. j. SEVERANCE, Judge.
CHAs. NJ. START, Judge.