, 1891-11-12
A TAXPAYER SUIT.
"A LENGTHY OPINION AS TO HIS
RIGHTS.
The Agricultural College Case Dis
missed by the Supreme Court
-gudge aoYt DEssemts.

AAAASGU ny hAe supreme OOuEG
Judge EEoyt Dissents.
[Notice-All decisions of the supreme
court will appear in The DAILY AM
WEEKLY TRIBUNE.l
W. D. Jones, plaintiff and respondent, VS.
T. M. Reed, auditor, ct al, defendants
and appellants.
The first proposition urged by appellants
is that under the provisions of the consti
tuition of this state the superior conrt has
no jurisdiction to entertain proceedings by
mandamus against state officers to compe
their performance of any official act, and
as the writ of injunction is in every re.
sRe6t the eorrelative of the writ of man.
damus, it follows thatit has no jurisdiction
to enjoln state officers in cases of this kind
We do not think this contention can be
maintained.
All that is decided in board of liquida-
ton vs. McComb, 2 Otto 531, cited by ap-
pellants, on the point, is that in certain
cases, probably analogous to this, Writs OF
mandamus and injunction are somewhat
correlatiye to each other. But the truth of
this proposition may be granted without
affecting the question of Jurisdiction un-
der our constitution. Sec. 4 of Art. W of
the constitution provides that the supreme
court shall nave original Jurisdiction in ha-
beas corpus and quo Warranto and man
damus as to all state officers, and appellate
jurisdiction in all actions and proceedings
with two hundred dollar limitation in
civil actions for the recovery of money!.
w know OF no cases where constitutional
provision OF this kind has been construed
to confer exclusive jurisdiction. It is a
grant of original jurisdiction, but there is
nothing in the language of the grant to
convey the idea OF exclusiVeness, or to ex-
clude the idea of concurrent Jurisdiction.
IN Delaheld vs.. State Of Illinois, Hill
l59, and well considered case, the court
saws: r'tlhern is OOth1no in tha 1otJ1ra of
Jurlsdlcton, as applied to courts, which
renders IL exclusive. 1t is not like grant
OF property, which cannot have several
owners at the same time. 1t is a matter of
common experience that two or more
courts may have concurrent powers over
the same parties and the same subject
matter. Jurisdiction is not right or priv
liege belonging to the Judge; but an au-
thorlty or power to do Justice in given
case when 1t is brought before him. There
Is, think, no instance in the whole his
tory OF the law where the mere grant Of
jurisdiction to particular court, without
any words of exclusion, has been held to
ousG any oChef court OF the powers which
II Defofe possessed
In CourtWrlght VS.. Bear, r. W. & M. Co.,
81 Cal. 573, 1t is held that the grant of orig
mai jurisdiction to a particular court of a
class OF cases without any words exclud-
ing other courts from exercising iurisdic-
ton In the same cases does not necessarily
deprive other counts of concurrent iuriS
dlction in such cases. To the same effect is:
Ames vs. Kansas, Ill United States 49,
United States VS.. Louisiana, 1913 JJ. s. 30.
Bors VS.. Preston, Ill u. S. 252.
In fact we think the universal current of
decisions is that way, and that no cases
can be found holding otherwise, excepting
IN few instances where, under constitu-
t!onal provisions giving original iurisdic-
c1on, congress has by law made the iuris-
01Gf10n aO tp oIro l,,a1r I,,L
they were cases which were peculiar to and
sprung out of the very existence of the
federal government, and the doctrine of ex-
c!uslVeness in those cases is discussed from
altogether different standpoint and in
wolves altogethera different principle. But
we do not base our Judgment in this case
entirely on authority SO far as the construc-
ton OF section is concerned, for the same
fundamental law that grants the original
jurisdiction to the supreme court is not 81
lent as to the original Jurisdiction of the
superior court, and section 4 must not be
construed as an independent section, but
must be construed in connection with Sec
ton 8, which, among other things, pro-
Yldes that the superior court shall also
nave original jurisdiction in all cases and
all proceedings in which jurisdiction shall
hoG nave peen by law vested exclusively in
some other court. Had the language of
the constitution been that the superior
court snail nave exclusive original jurisdic-
GIon' eCc., employing word not uncommon
III conferr1nR jurisdiction on courts, there
would not be much room for con
structlon, but as the trainers of the
constitution did not see fit to use
such word or any other word tending to
confer exclusive jurisdiction, there is still,
l. seems TO Us, about as little room for con-
stractlon. The language employed is in
perfect harmony with the idea Of concur
@ rent lurlsd5!ctlon; aud the idea Of concur
fent jurisdiction IS not an uncommon one
II the history Of our courts. It, therefore,
seems reasonable that the trainers Of the
constitution did not intend to vest exclu-
slVe jurisdiction in the supreme court, and
4idI, u tolloWs 4i That under the provisions Of
sectl9n the superior court has original
JuT17fsdlctlon. l1f'
Inc second contention of the appellants
lS lS that the respondent has no interest in
th the controversy to enable him to prosecute
citi2an il ulv aGd allegael9n On Is mat ne IS
!ngtqn. ION this proposition there is a
TPegars H. GonnlcT 81 aad5horty both
ions Of eminent authors Some Som sIe anfbors Hp1r,
assert, and some courts hold that