Keiver v. County of Koochiching
| Decision Date | 08 November 1918 |
| Docket Number | 20,965 |
| Citation | 169 N.W. 254,141 Minn. 64 |
| Parties | WILLIAM KEIVER AND OTHERS v. COUNTY OF KOOCHICHING AND OTHERS |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action by four taxpayers of Koochiching county to restrain the county board of that county from allowing any bill or claim against the general revenue fund of the county or authorizing the payment of any money to N. B. Arnold, for alleged services as special county attorney or otherwise, or in connection with county investigation into the construction of judicial ditches. The case was tried before Wright, J., who made findings and as conclusion of law ordered the dismissal of the action. Plaintiff's motion to amend the findings was denied. From the judgment entered pursuant to the order for judgment, plaintiffs appealed. Affirmed.
County attorney -- employment of substitute by county board.
1. Section 970, G.S. 1913, does not authorize the board of county commissioners to supersede the regular county attorney by the employment of another attorney to make such investigation and institute such actions on behalf of the county as he may deem fit. Such employment may only be authorized in specific matters, where it appears to the board that the regular county attorney cannot, for some good reason represent the county.
County attorney -- burden of proof.
2. The burden was upon plaintiffs to prove that no occasion existed for employing another attorney in the specific actions which the findings show that this attorney was employed to bring or else, if work had been under an invalid, roving employment, to so identify that work that the injunctive relief could be applied thereto. This burden plaintiffs failed to sustain.
County attorney -- lack of funds -- evidence.
3. The evidence is insufficient to sustain the claim that funds were lacking for the payment of the services still unpaid.
County attorney -- enjoining county board from passing upon claim.
4. The board of county commissioners ought not to be enjoined from considering the claim of one not a party to the injunction suit, unless it is very clear that no such claim can exist for the taxpayer interested has an adequate remedy by appeal from the allowance of the claim by the county board.
F. J. McPartlin, for appellants.
N. B. Arnold, for respondents.
As taxpayers of Koochiching county, plaintiffs brought this action against the county named, its board of county commissioners and the several members thereof, the county auditor and treasurer, to restrain and enjoin the allowance of any claim or the payment of any money to N. B. Arnold for alleged services, rendered as special attorney for the county in the investigation of supposed irregularities of county officials and in conducting litigation arising out of the conditions found. The answer in addition to a general denial attempted to justify the employment and alleged other matters not of any importance to a decision herein. The appeal is from the judgment of dismissal entered upon the findings.
The main contentions of appellants are that the county board was without authority to bind the county for the services rendered by Mr. Arnold, and those working under him, and that there were no funds available at the time of the employment from which the promised compensation could be paid.
The record discloses that suspicion had arisen that the business of Koochiching County was not honestly conducted. And, upon a petition for the removal of certain county officials, the Governor, in the fall of 1916, appointed a special commissioner to take testimony and report. It was found that there had been official malfeasance and misappropriation of public moneys. The Governor removed the county auditor and suspended three of the county commissioners. On September 16 1916, Mr. Arnold was appointed as a special attorney by the board, as then constituted, to represent the county in the removal proceedings "and take such steps as he deems advisable in the premises to protect and further the interests of said county" and "to appear for and on behalf of said county in any action or proceedings of a civil nature, and to commence and prosecute such actions or proceedings as he deems advisable to protect the interest of said county, and to recover for said county any property, money or things of value wrongfully taken and converted or appropriated by any officer or employee of said county or any other person." The board also undertook to authorize the employment of a large force of assistants and experts to work under the direction of Mr. Arnold. Bills for services rendered under these employments up to January 1, 1917, were presented and allowed by the county board; appeals were taken by taxpayers to the district court; the appeals were tried in one action; judgment was rendered in favor of the claimants and the judgment paid. The fair inference is that all claims for services in investigating the situation and in appearing in the removal hearing before the Governor have been paid, and that the claims remaining unpaid grow out of work performed in actions instituted or defended by Mr. Arnold in behalf of the county. Some civil and criminal cases conducted by Mr. Arnold have been disposed of, resulting in the payment of $15,000 into the county treasury, and the entry of judgments in favor of the county for approximately $65,000; but whether these...
To continue reading
Request your trial