Court Opinion

ID: 9506881
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 21:15:06.555783+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:10.159640
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE JOHN C. HARRISON
(dissenting):
I dissent.
Here, with little thought of the consequences, a new justice of the peace cited the board of county commissioners in contempt for failure to pay a questioned claim. The act as I see it was not a responsible act and one tending to create' courthouse friction. The board of county commissioners by law are the business managers of county government charged with the daily operations of county government within strict budgetary requirements. Each county office, including the judicial offices, are required to submit and justify their budgets for tax purposes and the board of county commissioners are required to oversee the fiscal expenditures by each official. Where it becomes necessary to cover unforeseen expenditures our statute, section 16-1907, R.C.M.1947, provides for emergency expenditures. No such request was made here. I find that the petitioner failed to exhaust all administrative remedies before pursuing his mandamus action and I would not have granted same. To me his actions did not exactly outdo Cicero in statesmanship — the true trouble was ineptitude, creating an unnecessary $64.12 question.
MR. JUSTICE CASTLES (dissenting) :
I concur in the above dissent of Justice John Conway Harrison.