Fritchman v. Athey

• Decision Date: 30 December 1922
• Parties: HARRY K. FRITCHMAN, Respondent, v. CATHERINE R. ATHEY, E. E. FRY, HUNTINGTON TAYLOR, NORMAN B. ADKINSON, DAVID BURRELL and W. J. HALL, Appellants
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

211 P. 1080

36 Idaho 560

HARRY K. FRITCHMAN, Respondent, v. CATHERINE R. ATHEY, E. E. FRY, HUNTINGTON TAYLOR, NORMAN B. ADKINSON, DAVID BURRELL and W. J. HALL, Appellants

Supreme Court of Idaho

December 30, 1922

INJUNCTION - DISCRETION OF ADMINISTRATIVE BOARDS - PLEADING AND PRACTICE.

1. Courts will not interfere by injunction with the exercise of discretion vested by law in administrative boards, but will in proper cases, interfere with the action or threatened action by administrative boards outside of their discretion and beyond their powers.

2. In a suit to enjoin a threatened action by an administrative board, on the ground that it is about to proceed in a manner contrary to and in violation of a statute which vests in the board certain discretionary powers, it is necessary to allege either that notwithstanding a proper exercise of its discretion the board is proceeding in violation of the statute, or else that the board has not acted in good faith or has abused its discretion.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, for Ada County. Hon. R. L. Givens, Judge.

Action to enjoin erection of tuberculosis hospitals. Judgment for plaintiff. Reversed.

Reversed and remanded, with directions, Costs awarded to appellants.

Roy L Black, Attorney General, and Dean Driscoll, First Assistant for Appellants.

Courts cannot interpose by injunction or mandamus to limit or direct the discretion and action of departmental officers in respect to pending matters within their jurisdiction and control, in the absence of fraud or bad faith. (1 Joyce on Injunctions, sec. 54, p. 108; 22 Cyc. 879; Afton v. Gill, 57 Okla. 36, 156 P. 658; High on Injunctions, sec. 1241; Balderston v. Brady, 17 Idaho 567, 107 P. 493; Barber Lumber Co. v. Gifford, 25 Idaho 654, 139 P. 557.)

Barber & Barber, for Respondent.

The limitation contained in the statute that it should be as centrally located as possible, due regard being had to suitability and accessibility, takes away from the commission the power to locate it wheresoever they may please, and imposed upon them the duty of getting as near to the center of the district as may be for the uses and purposes contemplated; it imposes upon the commission the duty of ascertaining whether or not there be such locations, and they cannot be excused from the performance of this duty upon the assumption that nobody came and showed them a better place. (People v. Board of Supervisors, 19 N.Y.S. 978; Ritz v. Board of Co. Commrs., 172 Mich. 423, 137 N.W. 964; State ex rel. Clark v. City of Elizabeth, 32 N.J.L. 357.)

It is incumbent upon the commission to show that there is no suitable site nearer the center of the districts than the ones selected. (Finch v. Riverside etc., 87 Cal. 597, 25 P. 765; Longenecker v. Wichita, etc., 80 Kan. 413, 102 P. 492.)

State officials or commissions attempting to do what they ought not to do are amenable to injunction, and it will always go to restrain an irregular use of authority. (State ex rel. v. Johnson, 234 Mo. 238, 137 S.W. 595; City of Bayonne v. Borough, etc., 77 N.J. Eq. 166, 75 A. 558; Corvallis, etc., v. Benson, 61 Ore. 359, 121 P. 418; Taylor, etc., v. Benson, 56 Ore. 157, 108 P. 126; State v. Lawrence, 80 Kan. 707, 103 P. 839.)

RICE, C. J. Budge, McCarthy and Dunn, JJ., concur, Lee, J., concurs in the conclusion.

OPINION

RICE, C. J.

In the year 1919, an act of the legislature was passed creating within this state two tuberculosis hospital districts. The act provided for the creation of a State Tuberculosis Commission. Under the general head of "Powers and duties of the state tuberculosis commission," it was enacted that "they shall acquire by purchase, or otherwise, real property for two district tuberculosis hospital sites, said sites to be high and dry, and generally favorable to the treatment of tuberculosis; they shall be as near the center of the districts as possible with due regard to suitability for the purpose, and the accessibility from all parts of the districts, and be adjacent to some incorporated town or city, and shall consist of not less than ten acres of ground for each site; such sites shall be separate and apart from those designated for almshouses. . . . " (Sess. Laws 1919, p. 175.)

The commission was appointed and selected two sites for the proposed hospitals, one near the city of Sandpoint and the other near the city of Payette. Respondent brought this action to restrain appellants, members of the commission, and the commissioner of public works from proceeding with the erection of the hospitals.

The principal contention of respondent was to the effect that the sites chosen were not as near as possible to the center of the respective districts, as provided by the act of the legislature. Upon the filing of the complaint, the court issued an order to show cause and granted a temporary injunction. From the order granting a temporary injunction, an appeal was taken to this court. Thereafter, appellants answered. A demurrer to the answer was sustained, and appellants declining to plead further final judgment was entered enjoining the construction of the hospitals. An appeal was perfected from the judgment.

The court will not, by injunction, interfere with the exercise of discretion granted by law to administrative boards. (1 Joyce on Injunctions, p. 108, sec. 54; 2 High on Injunctions, p 1247, sec. 1241; Balderston v. Brady, 17 Idaho 567, 107 P. 493; Town of Afton v. Gill, 57 Okla. 36, 156 P. 658.) In proper cases, however, equity...