State v. Gravlin

• Decision Date: 06 January 1941
• Docket Number: No. 32801.,32801.
• Parties: STATE ex rel. LOMMEN v. GRAVLIN et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

295 N.W. 654

209 Minn. 136

STATE ex rel. LOMMEN v. GRAVLIN et al.

No. 32801.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

January 6, 1941.

Proceeding in the nature of quo warranto by the State, on the relation of George H. Lommen, against Leslie M. Gravlin, individually and as commissioner of administration, and another, wherein the information and alternative writ are challenged by respondents' demurrers and motions to quash.

Demurrers sustained and motions to quash granted.

George H. Lommen, of Eveleth, pro se.

J. A. A. Burnquist, Atty. Gen., Chester S. Wilson, Deputy Atty. Gen., and Geo. B. Sjoselius, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.

STONE, Justice.

In this proceeding in the nature of quo warranto, the information and alternative writ are challenged by respondents' demurrers and motions to quash.

August 28, 1940, the Governor, as commander-in-chief of the military and naval forces of the state, formally directed the adjutant general to "proceed at once with the organization, training and equipping of a State Defense Force from the Unorganized Militia as provided" by Mason Minn.St.1927, §§ 2399, 2404, 2407. The purpose was to create a substitute for the National Guard as and when the latter is ordered into active duty outside of the state in the federal service.

Considering that an emergency existed, see Mason Minn.St.1927, Supp. 1940, § 53-18e, respondent Gravlin, as commissioner of administration, proposes, without competitive bids, to purchase "cotton and woolen cloth for uniforming approximately 5,350 officers and men" for prices far in excess of $500. So reads the information. Other and related actions of the commissioner of administration are also challenged. But the main purpose of the information is to prevent the purchase of the material for uniforms, without competitive bidding. Such course, in the absence of emergency, would be a violation of the statute. Mason Minn.St.1940 Supp. § 53-18e. Respondent King, as state auditor, is joined in the effort to prevent what is considered by relator an illegal expenditure of public funds.

The objection, raised by the demurrer and motion to quash, is well taken. It is that the writ of quo warranto is not allowable as preventive of, or remedy for, "official misconduct and can not be employed to test the legality of the official action of public or corporate officers." High, Extraordinary Legal Remedies, 2d Ed., § 618, p. 485. The authorities generally accord with this rule. The People ex rel. Farrington v. Whitcomb, 55 Ill. 172, 173; McDonough v. Bacon, 143 Ga. 283, 84 S.E. 588; State...