The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1910-07-28

viii eosi Il large sum of iilonsy 10
move sail offices from Guthrie TO
oklahoma City, to-wit, the sum Of
$4,000 90 or More md plaintiff
alleges that tbs defendants are
Intending to and WILL unless en-
joined by the court, expend said
sum Of money for said purpose
ont Of the public funds and money
OF the state in violation Of law.
In the Board OF Education Of TIN
Territory OF oklahoma. ct al. VS.. Tel
'itory Of Oklahoma ex rel. Taylor
;ounty attorney Of Oklahoma Terri
ory, " Okla. 2sG, the court said.
The purpose OF the action Is 10
prevent the members Oh the board
Of edu, alton from doing unatithO-
rizod acts from improperly ex-
pending the public funds for un-
authorized purposes; to prevent
them from entering Into an Tin.
authorized contract II Is d we'll
settled doctrine that courts Of
equity have power to cuioin min
isterial acts Of public officers
which are ultra wires, and beyond
the scope of their authority
(Noble VS.. Union River Logging
II. Co, l47 U. S. 1854; Osborn, ct
al. VS.. the President and Officers
Of Bank OF the United States, .
Wheat. iSJi Wilson vs.. l.aiiibeit
16S u. s. GIG; Leader Printing
60. VS.. Lowry, 8 Okla. 80; State
VS.. Metschau, 46 Pac. Rep. 791;
State VS.. Ellicott, II Ind. 2i1)
The expenditure Of public
money at a place or for pur-
pose not authorized by law, Is a
misappropriation OF the public
funds. and 4 sufficient injury to
enable the territory, through one
OF its officers authorized to rep
resent It, to call upon court OF
equity for relief. Estate VS.. Met
schau, aG Pac. Rep. 1919
While courts Of equity will not,
in an action for Injunction, try
the title to public office, nor at-
tempt 10 control the action of
executive officers in the appoint
ment or removal Of Officers, yet
where an inquiry into the legality
OF such acts Is an incident nee
cssary to the determination Of a
question rlghtfully within the
power of the court, such incident
al question may be inquired into
sufficiently TO enable the court TO
Iigiltfully determine the question
properly before It. Hence, while
Ia this cause the court will not
attempt to determine which Of the
Two committees appointed to ser
lect the site and locate the South
western normal school was en-
titled to the position or It's emolu-
ments, nor whether the governor
acted properly or improperly in
appointing second committee.
nor into his motives for such ac-
ton, yet for the purpose of de-
termining whether the board OF
education is acting within the
scope of its powers and authority,
we may and Will inquire into the
acts and authority upon which the
validity of the actions of the
board of education must neces-
sarily depend.
In State OK rel. Reed, county attoI
ey, VS.. Commissioners OF Mariol
ounty. and others, supra, II wa
cld
Where a board Of county conl-
mlssioncrs have made AN order
for the erection Of permanent
county buildings. have adopted
plans and specifications, have
directed the county clerk to nd
yertisc for bids for said work, and
arc about to enter INTO contracts
therefor on behalf Of the county,
aud the necessary prerequisites
prescribed by the statute TO in
cur obligations for the erection Of
this class of buildings have not
been complied with, held, that
such acts are illegal and unau-
tlorlzcd, and are proper subjects
OF the preventive jurisdiction OF
equity when its exercise is in.
Yoked by suitable authority
In State ex rel. Mccain VS.. Mei
eIiau. 80 Or. 372, II l.. II. A.. COZ.
$ said:
But this Is Il suit by the state in
It's sovereign capacity as the
guardian Of the rights Of the peo-
nle. instituted by lts executive
law officer. and cal, in our opin-
Jon be maintained without show
ing any special injury to the state
1t is enough that the public funds
are about TO he applied in d man
ncr prohibited By the constitu-
tion. At common law the attor-
ney general of England could, by
information in the name OF The
Crown, call upon the courts Of jus
tice TO prevent the misapplication
of funds or property raised or
held for public use, aud In tho
absence Of statutory regulations,
the district attorney ia this state
lis vested With Ike powers State
vs.. Douglag County Road Co. 10
Or 1875; Dollar Say Bank vs..
United States, - Wall 2s9, - l..
Ed. So Indeed, the right Of the
state, through is proper officer,
to maintain such q proceeding.
would seem TO be one OF the nee
essary incidents Of sovereignty.
without Il the rights OF The citi-