Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1908-01-22
Anent Injunction
Case Against
Commissioners
DEFINES BOARDS POWERS
Judge McFie Holds Appro.
priation to Send Delegates
to Washington is illegal

Below Is given synopsis OF the
opinion rendered by Judge John r.
McFie, in the Injunction proceedings
which were brought against the coun.
ty commissioners, the county clerk
and the county treasurer enjoining
them from issuing or paying warrants
TO defray the expenses of sending a
committee to Washington as was pro.
yided in resolution adopted by the
board at ts meeting Tuesday, Jan.
uary 10.
AS stated in yesterdays New Mex
ican the temporary injunction granted
was made perpetual, the demurrer in.
terposed in the case having been ov-
erruled. A synopsis Of the opinion
follows together with the views of the
court regarding the powers of the
board of county commissioners in the
premises
Synopsis of Opinion BY Judge McFie.
"On the tenth day of January, 1908,
an alternative writ of injunction was
issued by this county restraining the
defendants as individuals and officers
of said county, from issuing or paying
county warrants in the sum of twelve
hundred dollars ($1,2O0) or any other
sum, provided for in a certain resolu-
tion adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners at the quarterly meet
ing Of said board held in the county
of Santa Fe on Monday, January 7th,
1908, which resolution, among other
things, provides as follows: (Then
follow extracts from the resolution
which was published in full In yester-
days New Mexican in connection with
the official proceedings of the board of
county commissioners
"The case is now before the court
under the order to show cause, why
the defendants should not be perpetu-
ally enjoined from issuing or paying
the warrants provided for in the reso-
luton. A demurrer admits the
facts alleged in the complaint in so far
as the same have been properly plead.
ed, therefore counsel for the defend
ants do not seek to question the facts
alleged, but contend that under the
law they have right to take the
proposed action. The demurrer must
be overruled for the reason that 1t Is
in plain violation of section G93, G. l..
1907, prohibiting the allowance of
claims and the issuing of warrants by
boards Of county commissioners in
advance of the rendition of services
for which warrants are to be issued.
"This section of the statute Is In
force and would seem to be conclus.
i've that the Board of County Commits.
sioners has no authority to allow &C.
counts and issue warrants therefor In
advance Of the rendition of the serv.
Ice for which they are to be issued, |
as the person In receiving the warrant
is required to swear that the services
have been rendered There Is very
good reason for this provision of law,
because 1t cannot we'll be contended
that the county commissioners have
legal right to dispose of the funds |
Of the county without regard to the |
necessity therefor, or the beneficial |
character of services for which the |
funds are disbursed.
Gives Views as to Boards Powers.
Courts do not usually go farther |
than Is necessary in determining caus-
es before them, but in this case coun.
sci for both sides have requested the |
court for an intimation OF the views
of the court upon the power of the
Board of County Commissioners over
the funds and property Of the county
and their power to employ and pay
agents and representatives for such
services as are proposed in this case
under any circumstances OF course
1t Is not necessary for the court to ex.
press its views except in compliance
with what the court deems to be a rea.
sonable and proper request In view Of
future proceedings before the board
and therefore the court will take the
opportunity Of expressing some views
upon the subject, sought to be raised
by the demurrer but with the under
standing that they are not necessarily |
a part Of the decision rendered In this
case.
"The funding act authorizing the
county commissioners to compromise,
adjust and refund the indebtedness
Of counties, makes no provision for
any additional compensation, and II
am Of the opinion that in case Of an
officer where maximum salary is fix.
ed he Is required to perform all the
duties pertaining to the Office for the
salary fixed and in this territory there
,enalty provided by statute for
It or refusal to perform any Of