The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1910-07-28
MAKES HISTORY in U
The SCIENCE or LAW
tcontlnued { ON Pace y

AIuhtihuNu Vhl fHAe W
rciyed to, Admitting that this
court has jurisdiction 10 try the
question III this proceeding fof
u tnarasWns. We are nos asieund
70 DO 80. nor iE II propc that
Nec shculi DO SO. when another
court oOurt has acnnirpa jsisisdic
ton property, aad IL proceeding
10 exercise Il, especially when
we are asked to Compel party
TO do d thing from which he tx
fsiralncl by an injunction lssl-sx
ed by 4 court ct competent iuris
dicUon we leave the, question:
Therefore, 10 hc settled Mn that
curt whlcl Mas every facility Of
llurgirg the po!l books. And hsecl-
taining all tho facts upon which q +.
c3rrect decision necessarily dc-
l,erds. In the meantime, as there
has been, and can be, no other
legal mode Of determining the re-
snlt of this question. the connty
seat must remain UNCHANGED.
In People, ex rel " Want 4: III
263. the case Of People, ex a VI War
field, SUPRA, 81 cited With approval
on pagc 26i tis lil), 1t i said
THE care before lis shows thai
there are no less than three bills
IN equity and writ OF quo war
raHio now pending In the circuit
court, growing out Of this con-
troversy. by one or more Of which
tho questions can be Investigated.
a re-canyags Of ihc vote haa, tho
polls pi ged ana The questions
soEled; aad admiiiii8g AZ WAS
s.id IN TIE People V Warfie'd.
tiai this conr has jurisdiction
to tfy tie question In this pro-
cvedlhg for a mandamus, we are
noi hound 10 do 80, nor is il pro.
pcr thal we shoull, wnen ayofhet
court has acquired jurisdiction
prolierly. and Is proceeding 10
execute il. especially when we
ae asked 10 compel eii of.it-r to +.
do that which he is enlcine,i eom
doing by 4 court OF competent
Jurisdiction. 50. lh this ease. the
Citcnls court having acquired iIr-
is 1lciion OF the quc,tion. we must
decline to take cognizanoe OF 1t.
and VIII leave IL to The determine
tion Of The circuit court. 4
See also Brandon. ct III. v Stlinph
ct NJ. Is Lea fTenp) 5Si. Lindsay v
Helen III Tenn. 6Gg: state, OK rel
\. Fgglcstun. 81 al 81 Kan. 7ii:
Barnes V. Bonrl OF Supervisors ol
Pike courty II Miss. 2sJ, Simpson
county q Oh v Erlckiey. ct al. 81
Miss i7A; Baaen v. Smith, q IN
5S2.
Unlawful Expenditure of Money.
1t Is to be observed that In all ol
these cases, wherever there was an
apernent In the bill Of the unlawfu
expenditure of money, that in5unc
tion was held TO be a proper remed,
moi only 20 enioin such unlawful dis
bursement, but also to prevent ih'
removal of the county seat until tht
final determination OF the question
The pivotal question In The most 0
these cases Is as to whether such (;
bill maN,he maintained BY a taxpay
er The weight ofauthority seems L
hold that as to7the empvai OF 8 icoun
ty seat. such bill tmay be maintalne'
BY an elector aud taxpayer, although
there is considerable authority toffh
contrary Howeverg the great weigh
Of authority is that courts of eqnit
will not restrain the action of stat
officers in misappropriating publ
funds merely on the relation of cit
zens and taxpayers, the executive la,
officers of the state being the prope
party or. ..psaties to institute suits II
volving the disposition OF thef re,
enue OF the state. .JoHes " Reed.
Wash. 81; Birmingham v. Chocthal
Auditor et al 10 Wash. 657; City {
Tacoma, ct al. v. Bridges. Commi
sioners Of Public Lands, 20 Wasl
(, 221: Bible Y. Greene. 56 Miss. 592
Thompson v. Canal Fund Commit
sioners, : Abb. Pr. 24S. pomoroy
Equity Jurisprudence, tlae5l, Sc
J2j. g o
But. this action Is notaiiistituted {;
the instance of a taxpayer, but In th
name 1.-The state By one.of its exec
tive officers in behalf of the gene
| al public. seeking in its own courl
! (25 Am. & Eng. Encyc. OF Law. IN
Ed 4S51 to prevent the unlawfI
disbursement of public funds and III
removal Of the state capital under q
alleged invalid act In order To d
termine whether this writ of prohjh
ton should run, il Is to be assume
| that the ave ments of fact OF the 50
ond amended petition arc true. Ft
under the allegations OF the petitio
If the district court has iurisdicfint
it must be allowed TO first pass Q
the question AZ to the validity
the act aud 20 try the question of IA
as 10 the threatened removal and u
lawful disbursement of funds.
lll Slack. ct al " Jacob, ct al.
| n. Va. 6i2, the action was broug
by Iuhn Stack, ST., and six 9th
electors and taxpayers on behallt
/ themselves and all other citizens a
I taxpayers Of West yirginia exec
the defendant. by bill of equity
The circuit roliit Of the county
Nanasha ia the state of Wcst Y
sinia. III that eaac, the ccalt Ia
tnat the action OF The governor cot
lnOt be controlled by the process
tie courts making no distinction
tween The subordinate eSeclIiiyn
Ulcers and the chief executive 0
Ger, and DO moi seem to have pas
a., tl,a nnl4fi.n nc Ia uhofhpr 4t