Potlatch Lumber Co. v. Board of Com'rs of Latah County

• Decision Date: 18 October 1916
• Citation: 160 P. 260,29 Idaho 516
• Parties: POTLATCH LUMBER COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LATAH COUNTY, STATE OF IDAHO, Respondents
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

160 P. 260

29 Idaho 516

POTLATCH LUMBER COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LATAH COUNTY, STATE OF IDAHO, Respondents

Supreme Court of Idaho

October 18, 1916

LEVY OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR GENERAL ROAD PURPOSES-DISCRETION OF BOARD-CITATION FOR CONTEMPT IN DISREGARDING JUDICIAL MANDATE.

1. Under sec. 896, Rev. Codes, as amended by Session Laws of 1911, p. 162, it is the duty of the board of county commissioners to make an annual estimate of the probable amount of money necessary for general road purposes for the ensuing year, and when it appears that they honestly use their best judgment in making such estimate, their action is not subject to review upon citation to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt in disregarding the mandate of the court.

2. Held, that it appeared from the evidence adduced before the court upon contempt proceedings in this case that the board of county commissioners for Latah county used their best judgment in fixing the levy for general road purposes for the ensuing fiscal year, and that no evidence was submitted which would justify the court in concluding that said commissioners wilfully disobeyed the mandate of the court with regard to said levy, and that they are guilty of neither a civil nor a criminal contempt of this court.

[As to mandamus against public officers, see note in 98 Am.St. 863]

Proceedings on citation to show cause why respondents should not be punished for contempt for disregarding the mandate of the court. Order to show cause quashed.

Order quashed and vacated. Costs awarded to respondents.

C. J Orland, for Respondent.

"A writ of mandate is for the purpose of compelling the performance of an act which the law especially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office . . . . but we cannot direct what the result of the action must be." (Blomquist v. Board of County Commrs., 25 Idaho 284, 297, 137 P 174; Davis v. Porter, 66 Cal. 658, 6 P. 746; Beidler v. Kochersperger, 171 Ill. 563, 49 N.E. 716; Board of Commrs. v. King, 67 F. 202, 14 C. C. A. 421.)

"This court has no authority by proceedings in mandamus to control the discretion confided by law to inferior officers, boards or tribunals, whether it be judicial or only quasi-judicial in its nature." (State ex rel. Morganthaler v Crites, 48 Ohio St. 460, 28 N.E. 178; People ex rel. Green v. Board of Commrs. of Cook County, 176 Ill. 576, 52 N.E. 334; Exparte Rowland, 104 U.S. 861, 26 L.Ed. 604; Davies v. Board of County Commrs., 26 Idaho 454, 143 P. 945; Lindsey v. Carlton, 44 Colo. 42, 96 P. 997; Blackwell Lbr. Co. v. Flynn, 27 Idaho 636, 150 P. 42; In re Clerf, 55 Wash. 465, 104 P. 622.)

A. L. Morgan and E. C. Boom, for Appellant, file no brief.

BUDGE, J. Sullivan, C. J., concurs. Morgan, J., did not sit at the hearing or take any part in the decision of this case.

OPINION

BUDGE, J.

On the twelfth day of September, 1916, a writ of mandate was issued by this court, directing the board of county commissioners of Latah county to levy on or before the third Monday in September, 1916, a sufficient tax upon all the taxable property in said county not exceeding twenty-five cents on each one hundred dollars of assessed valuation, to provide for all general road purposes in said county, twenty-five per cent of such amount so raised to be expended in the respective road districts where it is raised, and said amount so raised to be exclusive of any amounts raised upon petition for levy of a special property road tax in any particular road district.

This writ of mandate was served on the chairman of the board of county commissioners on September 15, 1916, two legal days prior to the time fixed by statute within which the board is required to fix the levy for general road purposes.

Some time prior to the issuance of the writ of mandate a majority of the resident taxpayers of numerous road districts in Latah county had petitioned the board of county commissioners to levy a special property road tax on the taxable property within their respective districts, pursuant to the provisions of chapter 153, Sess. Laws 1913, page 522. All of these petitions were on file with the board of county commissioners at the time that the writ of mandate was served upon them. The writ of mandate, however, did not prohibit the board from granting the petitions of the resident taxpayers of road districts, but did direct the board to levy a sufficient tax upon all the taxable property in said county for all general road purposes, exclusive of any amounts raised upon petition for levy of a special property road tax in any particular road district.

An application was made to this court, supported by affidavits in which it was alleged among other things that the respondents, acting as a board of county commissioners, knowingly and wilfully disobeyed and disregarded the said writ of mandate of this court, both in letter and in spirit, thereby defeating, nullifying, thwarting and...