Court Opinion

ID: 9704852
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:48:16.827814+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:05.877813
License: Public Domain

RUDOLPH, P. J.
(dissenting). As stated in the majority opinion, a literal reading of the statute fails to disclose a violation under the facts here presented. The vice apparently is that the city failed to anticipate its needs, or anticipating its needs failed to get a bid on an amount of gravel in excess of $500.
The trial court did not find bad faith. In its Finding No. 8 it simply found that the city purchased the gravel as it did “for the purpose of coming within the rule set down in Section 45.1501 of S.D.C. of 1939 as amended.” Nor is there any intimation in the record that gravel could have been purchased any cheaper. There has been no loss to the plaintiffs as taxpayers.
In view of the literal compliance with the statute, and the fact that the record discloses no bad faith, I believe it was error to grant equitable relief by way of injunction. Clark v. Beadle County, 42 S.D. 146, 173 N.W. 743.