Boehm v. Board of County Com'rs of Reno County

• Decision Date: 10 April 1965
• Docket Number: No. 44134,44134
• Citation: 400 P.2d 739,194 Kan. 662
• Parties: Walter BOEHM, Appellant, v. The BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF the COUNTY OF RENO, State of Kansas, John C. Oswald, as Commissioner of the Second Commissioner District, Guy L. Ankerhoiz, as Commissioner of the First Commissioner District, and Jack Maloney, as Commissioner of the Third Commissioner District, all of the for Reno County, Kansas, Appellees.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Page 739

400 P.2d 739

194 Kan. 662

Walter BOEHM, Appellant, v. The BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF the COUNTY OF RENO,

State of Kansas, John C. Oswald, as Commissioner of the

Second Commissioner District, Guy L. Ankerhoiz, as

Commissioner of the First Commissioner District, and Jack

Maloney, as Commissioner of the Third Commissioner District,

all of the for Reno County, Kansas, Appellees.

No. 44134.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

April 10, 1965.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Where there is no constitutional impediment to the action taken or a lack of legislative authority, a court can review the discretionary action of a public administrative body only for the purpose of determining whether the action taken is fraudulent or so arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable as to amount to fraud.

2. The Board of County Commissioners is vested with discretion to determine the amount of land necessary for the construction of a county jail and other courthouse buildings under the provisions of K.S.A. 19-1569 and 19-1590.

3. The burden of proof is on the complaining party in an action charging the Board of County Commissioners with arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable conduct.

4. New buildings erected on a courthouse site but not attached to the main courthouse building or jail are 'additions to the existing courthouse and buildings' as that term is used in K.S.A. 19-1590.

5. The provisions of K.S.A. 19-1569 and 19-1590 are not so vague and indefinite as to render the sections unconstitutional.

E. Dexter Galloway, Hutchinson, argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellant.

Wendell S. Holmes, Hutchinson, argued the cause, Michael e. Chalfant and Richard J. Rome, Hutchinson, with him on the briefs, for appellees.

HATCHER, Commissioner:

This is an appeal from a judgment denying injunctive relief in an action by a taxpayer seeking to enjoin the acquisition of land for courthouse and jail purposes.

On June 21, 1963, the Board of County Commissioners of Reno County adopted a resolution under the provisions of K.S.A. 19-1569 levying a tax 'for the purpose of creating and providing a special fund to be used in acquireing a site for, and the building, equipping and furnishing of a jail. * * *' On the same date the Board adopted a resolution under the provisions of K.S.A. 19-1590 for the issuance of bonds 'for the further purpose of acquiring sites for the erection of necessary additions to the existing courthouse and building and the equipment and maintenance of such additions and buildings; and for the further purpose of making necessary capital improvements and alterations to the existing courthouse. * * *' Both resolutions were published for three consecutive weeks and no petitions in opposition were filed. Following publication of the resolutions the Board purchased four parcels of land under the provisions of K.S.A. 19-1569 and contracted for the purchase of additional land which was to be paid for from bonds issued under the provisions of K.S.A. 19-1590.

On June 16, 1964, plaintiff filed an action in the Reno County District Court asking that all of the purchase contracts be declared illegal and void; that the Board be enjoined from paying out funds on the contracts; that the Board be enjoined from levying any tax or issuing any bonds for payments under the contracts, and from carrying on further negotiations for the purchase of property for courthouse and for jail purposes. The case came regularly on for trial to the court on July 27, 1964. After plaintiff had completed the introduction of his evidence defendants moved for a summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff had shown no right to relief; the motion was sustained.

The plaintiff has appealed.

Before taking up the specific questions raised by appellant it will be well to consider a few general principles of law which will apply to all of the contentions.

It should first be understood that the courts have no supervisory power over administrative matters which the legislature has left to the discretion of public bodies. Where there is no constitutional impediment to the action taken or lack of legislative authority, a court can review the discretionary action of a public administrative body only for the purpose of determining whether the action taken is fraudulent or so arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable as to amount to fraud.

In Mid-West Photo-Play Corporation v. Board of Review, 102 Kan. 356, 169 P. 1154, we stated at page 359 of the opinion, 169 P. at pages 1155, 1156.

'So, here, the duty and discretion placed in the board of review being administrative in character and nonjudicial, the court is not warranted in substituting its judgment for that of the board. If the board should act fraudulently, or so arbitrarily and capriciously as to amount to fraud, a resort to the courts may be had, and as against such action an aggrieved party may have redress. Silven v. Osage County, 76 Kan. 687, 92 Pac. 604, . In The State ex rel. v. Mohler, 98Kan. 465, 158 Pac. 408, cited by plaintiff, this doctrine was recognized, and speaking of the acts of administrative boards, it was said:

"The exercise of such power is merely the exercise of administrative discretion. If this power is abused, the courts are open to the aggrieved party, if not by some statutory review, then by the extraordinary and prerogative remedies of injunction or mandamus.' (98 Kan. p. 472, 158 Pac. 411.)

'There have been repeated holdings that the decisions of a board or other tribunal upon which the Legislature has conferred the exercise of nonjudicial power, if made in good faith, are not open to judicial control or review, and that in such a case a court may go no farther than to prevent the abuse of the power so vested. In respect to the powers conferred on a municipal body it has been said that 'The courts have no supervisory power over the policy of municipal legislation. They can only interfere to curb action which is ultra vires because of some constitutional impediment or lack of antecedent legislative authority, or because the action is so arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, and subversive of private right as to indicate a clear abuse rather than a bona fide exercise of power.' * * *'

The Board of County Commissioners is vested with discretion to determine the necessity and the amount of land to be acquired for a given project. In Breedlove v. Wyandotte County Comm'rs, 127 Kan. 754, 275 P. 379, we stated beginning at page 756 of the opinion, 275 P. at page 381:

'* * * In a case where commissioners acquired land by condemnation for the purpose of widening and altering a road so as to care for a deep ditch or waterway in order to eliminate dangerous places in the road, the plaintiffs insisted that the proposed improvement was unnecessary and illegal, that the purpose could be accomplished without appropriating any of plaintiffs' land, and he sought to stop the improvement by injunction. The court held that the law gave the board authority to make the alteration and improvement, that it was vested with discretion in the...