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

w. Rep. 62S; Niles water works vs. City
of Niles 20 N. w. Rep. 525; Babcock vs
Goodrich 47th Cal. 4SS; Pack vs. Super
visors, etc. SO Mich. ST.
TwENTY-FIrrH. In extending the
rates of taxation against the taxable
property of the county, and in the levy
of the same defendants sought to ex-
clude "poor fund" "road and bridge
and "Minn. river bridge" from general
county purposes" and thus APPEAR
to levy for county purposes within the
limit allowed by law. The above men
toned items are county purposes new
ertheless, call them what defts. may.
See stat. 1873; chap. IL f; sec. 40. john
son vs. Board, ETC., supra. and Babcock
vs Goodrich supra. Stat. 1873; chap.
15; sec. 10 and Id. chap. Is; sec. 81.
TwENTY-srxrH. Where the legislature
intended to exclude such items from
general purposes, it has been so ex-
pressly provided, see stat. 1873; chap.
IL sec. 40; where it is provided. For
township purposes such sum..............
which shall not exceed, exclusive of.....
..,.....road and bridge purposes.
and support of poor. two mills, etc.
TwENTY.sEvENTH. And in sec. IS,
chap. II; stat. 1866, taxes were author
lied levied for all county expenses 9TH
er than roads and bridges, and see
Johnson VS. Board, etc. supra.
TwENTY-EIGHTH. Most clearly our leg
islature did not intend to exclude roads,
bridges, poor fund, etc., from general
county purposes, or these items would
have been expressly excluded, as In
laws above referred to.
TwENTY-NINETH. And clearly they
are county funds raised exclusively up
on the property of the county to be ex-
pended by the officers of the county IN
the performance of duties imposed up
on the county by law. If this is not
County purposes" what is?
THIRTIEru. The defendants are alb
solutely prohibited by law from con-
tracing any debt, or mourning any la
bility, necessitating a greater tax than
as provided by law, and any such con-
tract is absolutely void as against the
county. Stat. 1878; chap. IL; sec. ia;
Johnson VS. Board supra. and b. Nj.
r. Il. Co. va Clay Co. supra.
THIRTY-PIRsr. In Il. d NJ. X. X. Co.
supra, it was the duty of the commits
sioners to build county buildings, and
they were expressly authorized to bor-
row money therefor if the current rev.
enue was insufficient, and the court
held that they could only cover the de-
ficiency by borrowing and that any 9th
er manner of raising the money was IL
legal, that they could not levy greater
tax than allowed by law even under
vote of the people.
THIRTY SECOND. In the present case a
| tax of more than five mills is illegal, any
contract to pay more than the current
revenue will pay Is illegal, any indebt-
edness calling for the outlay OF more
| than the known revenue is illegal, the
drawing of any orders or issuing OF any
obligations calling for tax of more than
| five mills is illegal. See stat. 1878; chap.
| IL; sec. ia.
| THIRTY-TuIRD. Either the entire tax
levy for county purposes for the current
wear is void, or 900 of the so called
court house tax is void, in either event
defendants are wholly without funds to
carry out their proposed contract. Dill.
nun. corp. end ed. sec. 1872; note and
Roberts VS. Mayor > abb. prac. III.
THIRTY-FoURTII. The spirit of our law
is to prevent public officers such as the
defendants from creating any indebted
ness which cannot be paid from the tax
levy for the current year. They may
not anticipate the funds which may be
raised by a tax of five mills in years to
follow, they cannot say that 1T will be
more or Will be less any debt created In
anticipation of the amount to be raised
by future LEWIS is illegal and void. Niles
water works VS. City of Niles, supra. and
see Kanevs school dist. 8 n. w. rep. 459.
TH1RrY-FIFTH. The legislature recog-
nized the want of power In defendants
to raise $50, 600 by direct taxation, when
il expressly authorized the issue of
bonds for that sum, if approved by
vote of the people. Chap. 62 spec. laws,
1885.
THIRTY-sIXTH. Defendants are as
wanting in power to create a debt, as
they are to issue the evidence of the
debt (bonds) when the debt is once
created. Niles water works vs City of
Niles supra Johnson VS. Board etc. supra.
THIRTY-sEvENTH. The people have
stamped their disapproval upon the
proposition to create an indebtedness
for the purposes named and the defend
ants are the servants of the people.
THIRTY IGHTH Does the purpose of
defendants to proceed in violation of
law at all concern plaintiff or result in
any damage to him, not common to the
whole public?
THIRTY-NINTH Plaintiff is tax payer
who is assessed upon an amount of
property of a value particularly alleged
and any act of defendants increasing
taxation damages plaintiff pecuniarily
| in a degree not common to the whole
public, particularly the non tax paying
public. He is damaged to an extent
and in degree not common to any 9TH
ers than those who own the exact
amount of taxable property owned by
plaintiff. Hodgman VS. c. x st. p. Ry
Co. 20 Mimi. As.
FoRTIETT. Defendants cannot Il '-e
the first steps towards building, mot even
contract for plans, etc, without pledg-
ing the money, to arise from the tax
of $40, 600 illegally assessed, and the col
lection of this tax will damage plaintiff
personally pecuniarily. The tax itself
is cloud upon the title to his property,
and he has standing in court to have
il removed. B. Il NJ. K. Il. Co. vs Clay
Co. supra. Dillon mum. corp. end ed.)
sec. 737-73S and cases cited.
FoRTY-FIRsr. The destruction of the
present county buildings, with view of
procuring others to be built under con-
| tract, which will be void, and cannot be
enforced, will leave the county destitute
of buildings, is an unwarranted waste of
property, and will necessarily result in
an increased burden Of taxation upon
plaintiff to have them replaced. Hodg-
man VS. the C.. d st. p. Ry Co. 20 Mimi.
IS.
FoRTY-sEcoND. The court will restrain
defendants from drawing orders upon
the funds of the county to be used in
carving out an unlawful contract, as
the drawing and payment of such orders
will necessarily unlawfully increase the
burden ofplaintiff's taxation. Hodgman
VS. Ry. Co. supra.
FoRry-rHIRD. The court will restrain
defendants from levying upon plaintiffs
property for the year 1856 greater tax
for all county purposes than mills up
on the equalized value thereof.
FoRrY-FoURTH. While under ancient
decisions the courts would not interfere
with public officers upon the petition of
an individual unless the state was the
moving party, the disposition of the
courts more recently has been to furnish
easy, ready and convenient means to
the citizen to protect himself from the
unlawful acts Of public officers, and to
allow the citizen to proceed on his
own behalf or on behalf of himself and
others to restrain unlawful official acts.
B. d NJ. r. r. Co. VS. Clay Co. supra.
Dill. mum. corp. (2nd ed. secs. 1892
733-7334 and cases cited, and secs. 136-136
and cases cited. Hodgman VS. the G.
| q st. Ry Co. 20 Mimi. 4S. Nevill vs.
Clifford IL n. w. Rep. 4l9 and 5. c. "A
n. w. Rep. IS, and see Peck VS. school
dist. 81 Wis. 507, 523.
FoRTY-rIrTH. This seems to be es-
pecially the rule where the law does not
impose the duty of proceeding against
such officers upon the Attorney Gener-
al (see authorities supra) and in this