The Redwood gazette. [volume] (Redwood Falls, Minn.) 1873-1940, 1900-04-25
/. The proposition made by the Re
tor and % others and accepted by the

latOr and ~ others and accepted Dy the
respondents, as alleged in the writ,
was indefinite and uncertain, in that it
did not state the number or description
of the building to be erected and con-
structed, nor the time in which they
should be erected and constructed.
2. The erection and construction OF
the buildings mentioned in the writ
are by statute discretionary with the
Board of County Commissioners, and
it does not appear from the writ that
they have ever exercised that discre-
ton, nor determined upon. the num-
Der or description of the buildings to
be erected and constructed, nor the
time and place of their erection and
construction, and writ of mandamus
does not lie to compel them to exercise
such discretion, nor to compel them to
agree upon the number or description
of the buildings to be erected and con-
structed.
8. Under the proposition alleged in
the writ to have been made by the Re
lator and % others and accepted by the
respondents, the erection and con-
struction of the buildings by the re-
spondents was a condition precedent
to the furnishing.of the deed by the re-
lator and % others, and they are un-
der no obligation to furnish the deed
til the buildings had been erected.
4. The acceptance of the proposition
of the reIator and % others by the re-
spondents was not in effect an agree
ment to erect the buildings upon the
land in question, but was in effect an
arguement that, if they did erect them
there, the county should receive a deed
for the land.
mo authorities have been cited,
nor have | been able to find any, in
which public officers having a right
by statute, in their discretion, to
erect public buildings in any place,
have been compelled by mandamus,
by reason of any contract, to sur
render such discretion and to erect
them in place which they did not
deem suitable. In the case of Is
land County VS.. Babcock the de-
PENDANTS had offered to give deed
of a certain lot it that lot was chosen
as court house site, and it was so
chosen. and it was held that the de-
PENDANTS were liable in damages for
failure to give a deed; but l do not
think it follows that if the commits
sioners had, in their discretion,
changed the location of the court
house site, they could have been
compelled by mandamus to locate it
on the lot in question, which, in
their discretion, they did not deem
a proper place. The defendants
could have retained their deed (as
the relator could in the case at barr
till the lot in question swas chosen.
1t is the Office of mandamus to
direct the will, and obedience is to
be enforced bv process for con-
tempt. It is, therefore, necessary
to point out the very. thing to be
done; and command to act accord
ing to circumstances would be fu-
lie. II peremptory writ should
be issued in this case it could, in
effect, only command the respond
ents to proceed to erect such build
ings as, in their discretion, they
deemed proper. I think such a
writ could afford the relator no re-
lief
In my opinion, however, the ac-
ceptance Of the proposition of the
relator and % others did not con-
stitute contract to erect buildings
on the land in question, nor else
| where.
There can be no doubt that
when public officers have made a
legal contract on behalf of anv mu-
nicipal corporation, such CORPORA
ton may be compelled to paw for
! such property, or res-ond in dam
ages for the breach of such contract.
but, in my opinion, when the rioht
is given to such officers by statnte
to exercise their discretion in ra-
gard to the erection or location Of
public buildings, they cannot sur
render such discretion bv contract
and be compelled by mandamus to
erect such buildings in any narticu.
lar place. No authority has been
cited in which writ of mandamns
has been issued for such purnosa
and after a careful examination of
the authorities. I have been unahlo
to lind any such caSn and =.