Picotte v. Watt

• Decision Date: 26 December 1892
• Citation: 31 P. 805,2 Idaho 1154
• Parties: PICOTTE v. WATT et al.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

31 P. 805

2 Idaho 1154

PICOTTE v. WATT et al.

Supreme Court of Idaho

December 26, 1892

Syllabus

1. When the statute provides a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, it must be pursued. The fact that such a proceeding imposed great inconvenience cannot be urged as a reason for the interposition of equity.

2. A simple allegation of fraud and illegality in the action of a board of commissioners, without the statement of any facts constituting the fraud or illegality, is insufficient.

Appeal from district court, Alturas county; C. O. STOCKSLAGER Judge.

Action by T. E. Picotte, for himself and other taxpayers of Alturas county, against W. H. Watt and others to restrain the payment of certain warrants drawn on the treasurer of the county by the board of commissioners. A demurrer to the complaint was sustained, and judgment rendered for defendants. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

A. F Montandon, for appellant.

Bruner & Parsons, for respondents.

OPINION

HUSTON, J.

Plaintiff brings this action to restrain the payment by the treasurer of Alturas county of certain warrants issued upon the treasury of said county by the board of commissioners thereof, upon the alleged ground that such warrants were fraudulently and illegally "allowed, audited, and registered." The warrants are described by number, amount, date, and name of person to whom issued. While there is no statement in the complaint, in direct terms, of any facts constituting the alleged fraud, illegality in the allowance of the accounts, or claims for which the warrants were issued, it is fairly inferable from the allegations of the complaint that a large part, if not all, of the claims upon which said warrants were issued were so issued upon and in payment of claims against Alta county. The legislature of the state of Idaho, at its first session, by an act passed on March 3, 1891, undertook to create the counties of Alta and Lincoln out of the then territory of the counties of Alturas and Logan. This act of the legislature was subsequently declared to be unconstitutional by the supreme court of the state. Now whether the claims accruing against Alta county during the time intervening between the passage of the act organizing that county and the decision of the supreme court, pronouncing the same void, were properly chargeable and allowable against Alturas county, is a question we are not, under our view of this case, at this time called upon to decide. The defendants filed a general demurrer to plaintiff’s complaint, which was sustained by the district court. The plaintiff declining to answer, judgment was rendered for defendants, and from such...