Gunnison news-champion. [volume] (Gunnison, Colo.) 1905-1932, 1923-03-23


administrative ofiicials- In 1891. the
same year. the Court in ZIgier W.
Chaplin. reported in l2e n. Y. At page
3i2. held that the compliant which al
legged simply that the price proposed
to be paid BY the administrative ON
Ger was excessive. vas subject TO de-
murrer and that In order To be good.
II should allege that in the payment
OF this excessive price. the ofllcer or
officials were guilty OF misconduct.
and quotes With approval from the
opinion In Talcott W. Buffalo. that the
Court would not interfere when the
only question involved and the only
allegation Of the complaint is that the
price involved u excessive.
Here We have those two deciaions
from the highest Court OF the state.
delivered two years after the opinion
was delivered in the Winkler case BY
an inferior Court. holding definitely
that the Court would not interfere
when the only question was the price
to be paid In one case. and In the
other that misconduct must both be
alleged and proved. before the Court
will entestain an action and interfere
with the action OF the administrative
officer.
diligently searched the digests and
text books and find no case from n
higher COURTROOM the highest court
Of any state, in line with the decision
in the Winkler VS.. Summers case, and
then that case is based upon y New
York statute. In New York, before
the provisions Of the Code were enact
ed. upon which Zigler VS.. Chaplin, and
Talcott VS.. Buffalo was decided. that
court had held that taxpayer could
not institute and maintain such an &C.
ton under the common law.
Now, then, this is question Of law.
What am to do? What can Court
do under the circumstances? When a
Court acts il feels that il should be
butresscd by authority. 1t does not
matter what my sentiments may be at
all. must push all sentiment, If
have any, to one side. As observed
at the first, the real function of the
Court is to interpret the law; that is
my real function. must not act and
invade the province of another branch
of the government unless am salts
fled that the law as established in this
country warrants such action on my
part. So this leaves only the ques-
ton of value to be determined, and
whether or not there is anything in
connection with the price to be paid
here that would impress the Court az
being unconscionable and cause me to
act under that principle of law which
l have heretofore announced as war
ranting court Of equity in acting.
There has been wide range of tes-
4 L -. tA 1,.n ts. al
legged in the complaint that the proper
ty in question is not worth to exceed
So 800. Some witnesses for the plain
tiff have placed the value as low as
SIS 900. Several witnesses for the
defendants have placed the value OF
this property as high as $4,000. 1t
is to be regretted, of course, that we
have no more definite way of deter
mining the value Of property than We
have. The law allows very wide
range. You can determine the actual
market value II you can. If you cam
not, witnesses, skilled and unskilled,
can give their opinion, or you can re-
sort to expert testimony in the case.
Now, then, we have not resorted to ex-
pert Testimony, as take 1t. We have
had witnesses who tried to establish
the market value. The Court very
much doubts whether there is market
value. There are probably not enough
sales in this town in order 70 be able to
determine the value, 30 believe that
the character Of the Testimony we have
to consider here is the opinion Of skill
ed and unskilled witnesses a. to tho
value Of this property.
Mr.. Archer A. Miller gave some
very persuasive reasons which led him
to believe that this property was Of
the value which it is proposed the
County shall pay for it, namely $11,-
600. believed that some witnesses
have placed too high value on it. 1
am not bound to say what think its
actual value is SO far as that is con-
cerned.
Both sides have refrained from COM
menting to the Court upon the opinion
of Mr.. Walter Haymaker. II is true
that Walter Haymaker is a defendant
IN this case, but why, cannot tell. He
is neither 4 proper nor . necessary
party. II h has performed his legal
duties, and 1t is presumed that he has,
he made up the assessment roll and it
was in the hands Of the treasurer quite
awhile before this action was COM
menced, so BY operation Of law he is
eliminated rs necessary or proper
party to the case. So cannot con-
slider his testimony as being that Of q
defendant and interested party. He
placed the value on this as high as
1000. Ny opinion is that he is not
far wrong in his valuation. II he is,
then the difference between what he
says il the value and what other wit