Gunnison news-champion. [volume] (Gunnison, Colo.) 1905-1932, 1923-03-23
Decision of Judge
Logan in County
Garage Case
Continued from Page one]

NSoutiA1co AhViu oBc OESJ
because the price agreed to be paid
was about two and one-half times the
value OF the property and the works
were inadequate a1d unsuited to the
needs Of the city. We have the same
allegations in the complaint In this
case II the county in this instance
had demurred and stood upon its de-
murrer. II would be admitted that the
value OF the property In controversy
is not In excess of $500 and that the
property proposed TO be purchased Is
inadequate and unsuited to the county
needs. and the duty of the Court un-
der such circumstances would have
been plain. would have to enjoin the
sale OF the property to this county.
The Supreme Court OF Oregon was
Perfectly Justified In holding as Il did.
That Is good Law. and II We were face
to face with like circumstances. my
duty would be clear.
Il b also . we'll known duty OF an
attorney to abide and stand BY the
theory Of his case. He is not at liber-
~ to plead q theory and abandon Il.
While this theory is pleaded. the par
ticular features alleged In the COM
plant. that the property proposed to
be purchased was Inadequate and I'M
suited to the county needs Is. In the
opinion Of the Court. abandoned. and
the plaintiff relies solely upon the
question of an extravagant price TO be
paid for this property-s0 extravagant
as to be unc0scionable, and being un-
, considerable. they are asking the
Court. that is. their theory being that
IL II uncomfortable. they are asking
abe Court to interfere with an admin
isgattve branch Of the government and
restrain this sale.
The Court has carefully weighed
the authorities cited. I will say that
all authority. SO far as can find. Is
that Courts will not interfere with the
administrative branch OF the govern
ment unless one OF the three circum-
stances which have detailed appears
TO the satisfaction OF the Court, so as
to govern Its action. I have now re-
viewed the case OF Avery W.. Job re-
lied upon by the plaintiff Before
game to Gunnison. had also read the
| case referred to by counsel for plain
tin and being Mccormick Va. Mayor
ct al. a New Jersey case. reported In
| SO All. at page 1894. This case goes
no further than the principles an
InOunced awhile ago. that where the
action OF an administrative officer is
unc0nscionable. then the Court will
interfere TO stop the action OF the of.
ficer ! may have misunderstood conn
sci yesterday. but I understood him to
say the Court acted In this case and
restrained the officer. but 1t did not do
SO. II found that the city officers we're
justified In giving the price they did
for the property involved: but II ap-
pears that In that case possibly the
only allegation In the complaint was
that the price was SO excessive and SO
much greater than the real value Of
the property that II should strike the
Court an being uncomfortable.
The only other case which was cited
was Winkler We. Summers. Vol. s N.
Y. Sup. Al page 723. I had never read
this case further than what I could
get out Of one of the Digests published
by West Publishing Company. This
was also cited by Mr.. Hetheringt0n
at Grand Junction. This would be a
case. II appears. if 1t were independ-
ent OF statute. which would be direct
ly In line with the contention OF the
plaintiff In this case. $1,000 was
proposed to be given for certain prop
erty for school purposes. The Court
found from the best evidence the
value Of the property not to exceed
81. 1855 and because the prices was In
excess Of the value. the city was en-
Joined from purchasing. But It seems
to be under statute Of New York.
and n discussing this statute. while
the terms OF Il are not fully set out.
the Court observes that statute was
In force allowing tax payers TO insti-
tute suits In their own names. to pre-.
vent the misappropriation Of public
moneys or public property. Further
commenting. the Court says: For
this purpose the law that il now in
force. after having passed through
several amendat0ry acts intending to
render II more effective and complete.
provides that all officers. agents. COM
missi0ners and other persons acting.
or who have acted. for and on behalf
Of any county. town. village or mum
cipal corporation OF this state. may be
prosecuted and an action or actions
may be maintained against them to
prevent any illegal Official act on the
part Of any ohicer. agent. commission
er. or other person. to prevent waste
or injury TO. or to restrain and make
good any property. fund. or asset Of
such county. town or village by any
person whose assessment. or by any
number Of persons Jointly, the sum OF
whose assessment shall amount to
one thousand dollars" and then the
Court further nnds that this statute
was broad enough to include case
like the one under consideration.
We have NO statute of this kind In
Colorado that can md, or that has
been brought to my attention. There
are statutes in various states and
code provisions. which permit tax
payers TO institute suits of this char
acter and enjoin action Of administra-
tive officers. The Supreme Court OF
New York Il not q Court Of last re-
sort. It occupies the position, in the
| judicial system Of that state some
what similar to the district court Of
~