Codington County v. Codington County Commissioners
Decision Date | 07 March 1927 |
Docket Number | 6400 |
Citation | 51 S.D. 131,212 N.W. 626 |
Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Parties | CODINGTON COUNTY, Plaintiff and appellant, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CODINGTON COUNTY, and Freed, Perkins & McWayne,Defendants and respondents. |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Codington County, SD
File No. 6400—Affirmed
A. B. Jaynes, State’s Attorney
Perry F. Loucks, Watertown, SD
Attorneys for Appellant.
Hasche & Foley, Watertown, SD
Attorneys for Respondent Board.
McFarland & Kremer, Watertown, SD
Attorneys for Respondents Architects.
Opinion filed March 7, 1927
The board of county commissioners of Codington county selected the firm of Freed, Perkins & McWayne as architects to furnish plans and specifications for, and superintend the construction of a courthouse. The bid of said firm was not the lowest which had been submitted at the invitation of the board. From that determination the state’s attorney, pursuant to the written demand of seven taxpayers, took an appeal to the circuit court. Rev. Code 1919, § 5886. Thereupon the board and the architects separately moved to dismiss the appeal. From an order of the circuit court dismissing the appeal this appeal is taken on behalf of the county.
The only question before us is whether the action taken by the board in selecting the firm of architects can be reviewed by the circuit court upon an appeal taken under the provisions of section 5886, Rev. Code 1919.
That section provides, and the law has been the same since early territorial days:
“From all decisions of the board of county commissioners upon matters properly before it there shall be allowed an appeal to the circuit court.”
Notwithstanding the broad language of the statute, the Supreme Courts of Dakota Territory and of this state have consistently declared that it is only from such determinations as are of a quasi-judicial nature that an appeal will lie. The reasons for such holding are well stated in the following quotation from Fulkerson v. Board of Com’rs, 31 Kan. 125, 1 P. 261, which was quoted with approval by Chief Justice Tripp in Pierre Water-Works Co. v. Hughes Co., 5 Dak. 145, 37 NW 733:
See also, Taubman v. Board of Com’rs, 84 N.W. 784; Board of Com’rs v. Chicago, St. P. Ry. Co., 127 N.W. 728; Re Sorenson Drainage Ditch, 131 N.W. 300; State ex rel Cook v. Board of Comr's, 29 SD 358, 137 N.W. 354; Re Yankton-Clay County Drainage Ditch, 137 N.W. 608; Hoyt v. Hughes Co., 142 N.W. 471; Yankton County v. Board of Com’rs, 192 N.W. 179; and County of Codington v. Board of Com’rs, 199 N.W. 594.
The selection of an architect to plan and supervise the construction of a public building is not the exercise of quasi-judicial power, but is an administrative act. In Kraus v. Board of Com’rs, 39 Ind. App. 624, the court said:
The selection of an architect is, or should be, a result reached by an opinion of personal choice. It is not a result reached by mathematical computation nor by the weighing of evidence. That this is so is further shown by the fact that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Codington Cnty. v. Bd. of Com'rs of Codington Cnty.
...51 S.D. 131212 N.W. 626CODINGTON COUNTYv.BOARD OF COM'RS OF CODINGTON COUNTY. et al.No. 6400.Supreme Court of South Dakota.March 7, 1927 ... Appeal from Circuit Court, ... the Circuit Court by the County of Codington from the decision of the Board of County Commissioners of Codington County, consisting of James E. Kiley and others, selecting the firm of Freed, Perkins ... ...