The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1895-10-11

all other questions relating to the |
business or affairs of the town, and |
that the certain effect of uniting
several subjects of various merits and |
character in single vote of electoral !
assent or dissent, is an unfair and
fraudulent exercise of municipal au-
thorlty and that for these reasons, the
ordinance and all action under it
should be pronounced null and void
To the plaintiffs bill of complaint
the defendants now interpose de-
murrer, which, admitting the facts set
forth in the bill of complaint AYERS
that the plaintiff is not entitled to the
relief prayed for because the Court
has no jurisdiction over the subject
matter Of complaint. that the bill is
defective as to parties and that the
plaintiff is not entitled to maintain
his bill
To the averments made in the sth
and 9TH divisions of the demurrer,
that there are not proper parties to
the bill and in particular that the
plaintiff has no sufficient interest and
standing in court to maintain his posi-
tlon as complainant, the answer may
be made that by amendment of the
bill objection that the town of Blooms
burg was not made party defendant
has been removed. The interest Of
the plaintiff as taxpayer of the town
is sufficient in extent and character to
constitute him proper party com.
plainant. This latter point is estab-
lished by many authorities from
among which may be cited a Brew
ster, 1873, Sank and Megory VS.. City
ct. al. Page ct. al VS.. Allen ct. al.
5S Pa. St. 33S. Bergner ct. al. VS..
The City Council. I Pearson, aoI.
Allen (Mass.) 1903. Am. & Eng.
Encyl. Vol. 10, page o59-6oI-a93.
American Digest 1898 page 1927.
In the case of Spencer VS.. Joint
School District, IS Kan. a5e. Mr.,
justice Brewer granted an injunction
at the suit of a single taxpayer res
training the case of school house for
evening meetings, upon the ground
that such was not the purpose of its
erection. He held that the extent of
injury or benefit sustained by the
plaintiff and others would not be in
quired into by the Court.
In the precisely similar case OF
Wier VS.. Day, IS Ohio, I43, in which
the lease of school house for term
of weeks was enjoined, the Court
said: "As resident taxpayer in the
District it is the plaintiffs legal right
to have the corporate property used
solely for corporate purposes and
any diversion of the property to other
uses is an injury to him in law"
In the similar case of Schoheld VS..
School District, 81 Com. 400, the
court said that while the injury to the
Complainant might not be serious, il
was substantial.
| And in the recent case of Morton
ct. al. VS.. the city of Phila, Dist
Rep. 523 which was subjected to
elaborate argument, it was unqueston
ed that taxpayers bill could be main.
tanned for an unlawful exercise ol
corporate power, resulting in slight
pecuniary damage to the parties com
plainant, although in that case Judge
Thayer ruled that the transportation
of the Independence Bell to the At
lanta Exposition, at the expen:e oi
the city was not an unlawful exercise
of municipal power. In Naile vs.
city of Austin, TEX. Co. App FL S
w. 375, Am. Dig. page 35a7, Sec
$40, 1t is held that citizen taxpayer
has a right to an injunction restraining
the issue of bonds, to be paid by taxa.
tion, alleging that they are being
issued for an unlawful purpose, al,
though apparently for lawful one.
| The several averments of the de.
murrer that the provisions of law made
for contesting, or reviewing, political
elections for the choice of public of.
ficers, have no application to the pro.
posed election in the Town of Blooms
burg, appear to be we'll founded, but
instead of constituting an objection to
the bill constitute one of the main
reasons in its support. 1t is because
there is no adequate remedy at law
that equitable jurisdiction can be in
voked. Otherwise the plaintiff would
be without remedy. The proposed
election would determine rights of
property belonging to the taxpayers
and not the right to a political office
fixed and established by law.
The 9th division of the demurrer
AYERS that the bill is apprehensive, and
upon that ground cannot be maintain
ed. But upon this point the rule ap.
pears to be that bill will be main.
tanned where the danger apprehended
is likely to occur unless injunction be
| prapfe1 Hilli,rJ -, T.:,.z.;os..