Case Name: INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 OF KOOTENAI COUNTY, Appellant, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS et al., Respondents
Court: Idaho Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Idaho
Decision Date: 1911-11-01
Citations: 20 Idaho 448
Docket Number: 
Parties: INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 OF KOOTENAI COUNTY, Appellant, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Idaho Reports
Volume: 20
Pages: 448–449

Head Matter:
(November 1, 1911.)
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 OF KOOTENAI COUNTY, Appellant, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS et al., Respondents.
[119 Pac. 52.]
APPEAL from the District Court of the Eighth 'Judicial District for Kootenai County. Hon. John M. Flynn, Judge.
Application for writ of mandate to the Board of County Commissioners.
Writ denied. Reversed.
iWhitla & Nelson, for Appellant.
To supersede a remedy by mandamus, the party must not only have a specific, adequate legal remedy, but one competent to afford relief upon the subject matter of his application, and one which is equally convenient, beneficial and effective as the proceeding by mandamus. (Baisch v. Board of Education, 81 Cal. 542, 22 Pac. 890; Sinclair v. Young, 100 Va. 284, 40 S. E. 907; Fremont v. Crippen, 10 Cal. 212, 70 Am. Dec. 711.)
“The existence of another remedy is not enough unless it is as plain, adequate and effectual as the remedy sought.” (Bollan v. State, 9 Wyo. 377, 64 Pac. 82; High, Extr. Rem., sec. 17, 20.)
This court has held that the court would compel the action of the board of county commissioners by mandamus when they had failed to do what the law says they should do. (Blake v. ' Board of County Commrs., 5 Ida. 163, 47 Pac. 734; Blaine County v. Smith, 5 Ida. 255, 48 Pac. 286.)
Mandamus is the proper remedy to compel a levy of school taxes when an,insufficient amount has been levied or ordered by the board of county commissioners. (State v. Board of County Commrs., 12 Mont. 503, 31 Pac. 78; Waupaca County v. Town of Matteson, 79 Wis. 67, 48 N. W. 213; People v. Ames, 24 Colo. 422, 51 Pac. 426; City of Lexington v. Board of Education (Ky.), 65 S. W. 827; State v. Byrne, 32 Wash. 264, 73 Pac. 394.)
N. D. Wernette, and Elder & Elder, for Respondents.
Any order, decision or action of the board may be reviewed on appeal. (School District No. 25 v. Bice, 11 Ida. 106, 81 Pac. 155.)
Equity will not be invoked where the party has a plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law. (Picotte v. Watt, 3 Ida. 447, • 31 Pac. 805; Bogers v. Hayes, 3 Ida. 597, 32 Pac. 259; Morgan v. County Commrs. Kootenai County, 4 Ida. 418, 39 Pac. 1118; County of Ada v. Bullen Bridge Go., 5 Ida. 188, 95 Am. St. 180, 47 Pac. 818.)

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
On the authority of Dart v. The Board, decided at this term of court, ante, p. 445, 119 Pac. 52, and Fenton v. The Board, decided at this term of court, ante, p. 392, 119 Pac. 41, the judgment entered in this ease must be reversed, and it is so ordered. Costs awarded to appellant.