Johnson v. Bd. of Com'rs of Norman Cnty.

• Decision Date: 11 November 1904
• Citation: 101 N.W. 180,93 Minn. 290
• Parties: JOHNSON v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF NORMAN COUNTY et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

93 Minn. 290

101 N.W. 180

JOHNSON

v.BOARD OF COM'RS OF NORMAN COUNTY et al.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Nov. 11, 1904.

Appeal from District Court, Norman County; William Watts, Judge.

Action by J. G. Johnson against the board of county commissioners of the county of Norman and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

Action to enjoin the erection of a courthouse and the issuing of county bonds on warrants to pay therefor. Held:

1. That in determining the debt limit of the county, ditch bonds are not to be taken into consideration.

2. The findings of the trial court to the effect that the defendants did not intend to issue the warrants of the county in payment of the contract price for the erection of a courthouse are not sustained by the evidence. C. A. Nye and C. G. Dosland, for appellant.

E. M. Niles and W. E. Rowe, for respondents.

START, C. J.

On April 3, 1903, this action was commenced by a taxpayer against the board of county commissioners of the county of Norman, its chairman, and the auditor of the county, to enjoin the board from building a courthouse at the expense of the county, and from negotiating the bonds of the county, or issuing any warrants in payment of the same. The trial court made findings of fact and ordered judgment in favor of the defendants. Judgment was so entered, from which the plaintiff appealed.

The here material allegations of the complaint are to the effect following: The defendant board, on August 26, 1902, without a vote of the electors of the county authorizing it, decided to build for the use of the county on land owned by it a courthouse, and to issue the bonds of the county to pay for the same. It accordingly entered into contracts for the building of such courthouse for an agreed price, amounting in the aggregate to $55,000. It has, pursuant to such decision and contracts, commenced the erection of the courthouse, and intends to so continue the execution of such contracts, and in so doing to pledge the credit of the county and incur an indebtedness against the county in a sum exceeding $55,000, which is largely in excess of the limit indebtedness the board is authorized by law to incur, and to issue the warrants and bonds of the county therefor. The answer admits that the board entered into the contracts alleged in the complaint, and that they intend to and are actually proceeding with the construction of the courthouse pursuant to the contracts, and intend to, if necessary, issue the bonds of the county for the purpose of paying such balance of the contract price as may remain unpaid after the funds available for that purpose are exhausted. The answer denies that the indebtedness incurred by the making of the contracts exceeded the limit of indebtedness which the county is authorized by law to incur, and expressly alleged the contrary. On the trial the answer was amended by striking out the admissions and allegations relating to issuing bonds. See Hetland v. Norman County, 89 Minn. 492, 95 N. W. 305.

The trial court made, with other findings, the following: ‘(6) That said board of county commissioners intend to and are continuing the erection of said new courthouse; that the contracts aforesaid are in excess of their authority to bind the county, are void, and do not create any legal obligation against the said county of Norman. (7) That the said defendants, nor any of them, do not threaten or intend to issue any bonds of said county for the purpose of paying for said new courthouse, nor do they threaten or intend to sign, execute, or issue any county warrants or other evidences of indebtedness for or on behalf of said county in payment for building said new courthouse, in excess of moneys in the general fund of said county properly applicable to the purpose of building a new courthouse within the same.’

The first alleged error to be considered...