The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1886-05-21
THE INJUNCTION CASE!
IContinued from First Page. !

DuCh, pIcSthltu tic iouoNiiS bTltl Ol
law and facts.
Each county shall provide at the coun- |
ty seat suitable court house and suffi- |
Gent Jail and fire-proof offices and other
necessary buildings, and keep the same
in good repair. See revised statutes of
1873; p. l3l; sec. 81. Duty as to provid-
ing otiices-revision of 1878, p. l3S; sec.
lilo. The right to determine when a
court house, Jail and public offices shall
be built by county is vested in its COM
missioners and rests in their discretion.
See 6 Mimi. reports 204-the Chaska
Company VS. Board of Supervisors of
Carver county. Ohio state 80 ex-parte
David A. Black approved Dillon
municipal corporations 2nd edition, sec.
612. This case holds To interfere N the
matter by mandamus" would be to usurp
the functions of the county commission
ers and deprive them of the discretion
vested III them 10y law" See also 10
Northwestern Reporter l32 case Of Tor
rent VS. county of Muskegon. Same
case AZ Mich. ll5, Al American Reports,
7l5 which holds that "a bill will not lie
10 restrain the common council OF mum
Icipal corporation from putting up suit
able public buildings for the purposes
of city offices if the provisions of the
tildTltT no not prevent IL.
In this case the city of Muskegon al
ready had an engine house, which il
was proposed To destroy and erect
more expensive one in connection with
other public purposes, and the injunct-
ion was sought on the ground that the
proposed building is more expensive
than would be needed by the fire de-
partment.
In this case the court say: I'VE have
not deemed il necessary To consider the
questions bearing on the right of these
TO yindicate public grievances. The
experiment is i'll judged on its merits.
We also find it our duty To refer to the
danger of interfering in the outset of of
a case bv injunction, with interest
where delay may work great damage,
without making full provisions for re-
dress by an adequate injunction bond.
Defendants ought not To be subjected
by the machinery of the law To irrepar-
able mischief"
See also ; Allen p. l2-French VS. In
habltants of Quincy-which holds while
town is erecting structure of eXpen-
sive materials II is proper that reason
able regard should be had 10 its pros
pectlve wants such as its increase in
population and business will
be liable Ia create. Prudence would
dictate that building erected to last
for centuries should be sufficient for the
necessities and convenlences that may
arise for long time To come. See ALSO
- Peck Il Spauldingv W. Lowell; Is Mass.
272 Stetson W kempton: - Pick 221
Willard vs. NewpurypoTt. See also "a
Ill. 303, same case - American Reports
46l, the people VS. Board of Supervisors
of La Sale county which holds "that il
county board shall fail to provide and
the finances of the county justify the
construction of one, the board may be
enforced by nandamus 10 construct a
Jail but when the supervisors have pro-
vided a Jail, the court on application for
mandamus cannot enquire whether il is
suitable. This is a question for the
board 10 decide" Discretionary power
not subject 10 judician control. ] Dillon
on municipal corporations sec. IS, citing
23 Pick; also sec. 800; also Dillon on
municipal corporations 727; See also
High Oh injunctions secs. 7S5, $50, 7S7,
mo principle of equity Jurisprudence Is
better established than that courts of
equity Will not sit in review of the pro-
ceedIngs of subordinate municipal trIb-
unals and that where matters are left to
the discretion Of such bodies, the eXer-
else of that discretion in good faith is
exclusive and will not in the absence of
fraud be disturbed, citing 22; 81 Barb
40, Kelsey VS. King; - Barb lo2, people
VS. mayor; see also II ~ y. $50 ketchum
VS. Buffalo; 81 Mich. % 3 Wend Ill 5
Cowen GA Is Ill 2i3 CITY of Ottawa vs.
people. - Johns. 259, Hall vs. the sup
eryisors of the county of Oneida, II
Johns Ala. See also Platter VS. Board OF
County Commissioners of Elkhart coun-
ty, Indiana, case cited in vol. ], no. Z,
Nov. ii, 1880 Western Reporter p. 235,
in which it is held p. 2i2 that in once
locating county institution the Board
of commissioners do not exhaust its
powers for such power as is true of all
general powers of a similar nature is not
exhausted by single exercise.
Ii is for the authorities of the locality
and not for the courts TO determine
what changes are required by the
growth, expansion and other alterations
in the condition and progress of the
county" See also vol. & no. 6 Dec. %,
1885. Supreme Court Reporter Clay
ton as 10 what expenditure are proper
and necessary for municipal administra
ton is not judicial but confined by law
to the disposition of municipal authori-
ties and no court has the right 10 con-
troll that. See also wells on jurisdiction
of courts p. 1874, holding that "a court
cannot interfere with the discretion of a
municipal corporation in regard to pub
lie improvements"
Also p. 34-"then il has been ruled
that the only acts TO which the power of
the court by mandamus extends are such
as are purely ministerial and with re-
gard 10 which nothing like judgement
or discretion in the performance of his
duties is left to the officer, but that
whenever the right of Judgement or de-
cision exists in him, il is he and not the
courts who can regulate its existence"
citing L. :. vs. Guthrie II How 30i in
functions when will not issue.
Dickinsons ChanceTy precedents p.
$40, holding cit is the law of the court
and dictate of sound reason that when q
party desires extraordinary aid he must
be prompt in his application" citing
Scudder VS. Falls Co. sax 695 especially
when the party IL seeking the injunction
against an important work. Scanlon Va
Howe 273; EastOn VS. Railroad Co. id. 80.
Also "when public interests or the
right Of large classes are involved an in
junction will not be granted, except up
ON hearing and notice, and then only
when it clearly appears that the injunc-
ton will not prejudice public or quasi
Beas 499; Sugar Refining Co. VI Jersey
City, ii G. +. q. 2i7.
Equity will not interfere To restrain a
tax merely because OF its illegality.
High on Injunctions, :154 ans. 800 and
notes; q Minnesota 3S7 Clarke VS. GEM
Delay in applying for injunction end
fatal. Sec: . Waites practice y p. <. re-
ferring to fash VS. Adams 10 Cush 252;
Whitney VS. Unica Railway Co. IL Gray
359.
Neither can an injunction issue to re-
strain any act which is III the discretion
of municipal corporation. 2 Waites
Practice p. ~ referring to 80 Barbour
288 and 10 How 475 and "a Barbour lG9.
To same import "and whenever the
statutes have given to public officers
discretionary power an injunction will
not be the proper remedy 10 correct an
error IN its eXerIlse." See 2 Waites
Practice referring to Woodruff VS. Fisher
IL Barb 224; Gillespie VS. Broos, 23 Barb
$40; Lee VS. Westwell, 2 dun 6lS. See
also 10 Northwestern Reporter l32-47
Mich. lis Torrent VS. county Of Muske-
gon on point that injunction ought not
10 issue where there is danger of inter
fering in the outset of a case with inter
est where delay may work great damage
without making full provision of redress
by an adequate Injunction bond.
The levy legal for year 1885. Tax Or
dered levied was:
For county purposes......."....... $39, 400
For poor fund. ......................-..... 4,OOO
For road and bridge fund. 1900
For Mimi. river bond fund.-. 1900
And also one mill for general school
purposes as authorized by statute.
Tax legal of So, 400 because il is only
A and S-lO mills on the valuation and by
revision of 1878 p. 226, sec. 40, levy leg