Kitchell v. Bd. of Comm'rs of the Cnty. of Union

• Court: Indiana Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Mitchell
• Citation: Kitchell v. Bd. of Comm'rs of the Cnty. of Union, 123 Ind. 540, 24 N.E. 366 (Ind. 1890)
• Decision Date: 14 May 1890
• Parties: Kitchell v. Board of Commissioners of the County of Union et al.

123 Ind. 540

24 N.E. 366

Kitchell

v.

Board of Commissioners of the County of Union et al.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

May 14, 1890.

Appeal from circuit court, Union county; A. C. Harris, Special Judge.

Reuben Conner, H. L. Frost, Geo. W. Pigman, David W. McKee, and Jos. I. Little, for appellant. Thos. D. Evans, L. H. Standford, and J. W. Connaway, for appellees.

Mitchell, C. J.

Certain tax-payers residing in Union county sought to enjoin the board of commissioners from proceeding to let the contract for the erection of, and from erecting, a court-house for the use of the county. An injunction was asked upon two independent grounds: (1) It was alleged, in substance, that there was no necessity for the erection of a new court-house, because the county already had one that was in all respects suitable, safe, and convenient, and fully adequate to accommodate all the public offices and business of the county for 15 or 20 years to come, and that the proceedings of the board in ordering the old court-house to be taken down, and in adopting plans and specifications for a new one, were altogether in the interest and for the benefit of certain architects, whose plans had been adopted, and who were to receive a specified percentage upon the cost of erecting a new building. (2) It was also claimed that the order of the board adopting plans and specifications for the new building proposed was a nullity, because there was incorporated in the specifications adopted by the board a stipulation by which the commissioners reserved the right, in conjunction with the architect, to alter or modify the design of the building, or the construction and details of the work, and to add to or diminish the contract price in proportion as the work added or omitted was greater or less than that called for by the plans and specifications adopted.

In respect to the first proposition, it is only necessary to say the statute (Rev. St. Ind. § 5748) makes it the duty of the county commisssioners in each county to “cause a court-house, jail, and public offices for the clerk, recorder, treasurer, and auditor to be erected and furnished where the same has not been done,” and to keep all the public buildings of the county in repair, and to make the public offices fire-proof, if practicable. The county board is authorized (section 5749) to provide the means, by borrowing or otherwise, in order to construct, complete, or repair the court-house or other county buildings, whenever it shall be necessary to do so. It was necessary that the power to determine when the public interests demanded that the court-house in any county should be repaired or rebuilt, or whether it should be superseded by a new one, should be lodged somewhere. The legislature has seen fit to intrust that power to the board of county commissioners, and, while the board acts within the discretion committed to it, there is no place for judicial interference until it is clearly shown that the commissioners are acting fraudulently or corruptly, and in violation of their duty as public officers. The law having devolved the duty of deciding in respect to the propriety of replacing the old court-house with a new...