district,123 classify offices under civil services,124 assess property for taxation,125 audit and approve officer's accounts,126 pay over money in their possession and due another person, corporation or officer,127 erect,128 repair or rebuild highway bridge, 129 open high McCain, 9 S. D. 57, 68 N. W. 163; People v. New York Canal Board, 13 Barb. (N. Y.) 450; People v. Contracting Board, 46 Barb. (N. Y.) 254; State v. Printing Com'rs, 18 Ohio St. 386; State V. Marion County Com'rs, 39 Ohio St. 188; Boren v. Darke County Com'rs, 21 Ohio St. 311; State v. Shelby County Com'rs, 36 Ohio St. 326; Times Pub. Co. v. City of Everett, 9 Wash. 518, 37 Pac. 695; Hanlin v. Charles City Independent Dist., 66 Iowa, 69; In re Hilton Bridge Const. Co., 13 App. Div. 24, 43 N. Y. Supp. 99; State v. Bartley, 50 Neb. 874, 70 N. W. 367; State v. Lincoln County, 35 Neb. 346, 53 N. W. 147; State v. McGrath, 91 Mo. 386; Tribune Printing and Binding Co. v. Barnes, 7 N. D. 591, 75 N. W. 904; Cook County Com'rs v. Peoples, 78 Ill. App. 586; Hoole v. Kinkead, 16 Nev. 217; State v. Kendall, 15 Neb. 262; Detroit Free Press Co. v. State Auditors, 47 Mich. 135. See, also, Grant v. Common Council of Detroit, 91 Mich. 274, 51 N. W. 997. 122 Roberts v. People, 93 Ill. App. 645; Young v. Carey, 80 Ill. App. 601; People v. Common Council of San Diego, 85 Cal. 369, 24 Pac. 727; City of Lebanon v. Creel, 22 Ky. L. R. 865, 59 S. W. 16; Steele v. Willis, 23 Ky. L. R. 826, 64 S. W. 417. 123 School Trustees v. Kay, 8 Ill. App. 30; Odendohl v. Russell, 86 Iowa, 669, 53 N. W. 336. 124 People v. Kraus, 171 Ill. 130, 48 N. E. 1052. 125 Harris v. State, 96 Tenn. 496, 34 S. W. 1017; State Board of Equalization v. People, 191 Ill. 528, 61 N. E. 339, 58 L. R. A. 513; People v. Molloy, 35 App. Div. 136, 54 N. Y. Supp. 1084. 126 Chase v. Board of Directors of State Penitentiary, 55 Kan. 320, 40 Pac. 665. 127 Higgins Tp. v. Midland County Sup'rs, 52 Mich. 16; Roscommon Tp. v. Midland County Sup'rs, 49 Mich. 454; Public Schools v. Hammell, 31 N. J. Law, 446; State v. Wyoming Live Stock Com'rs, 4 Wyo. 126, 32 Pac. 114; Anne Arundel County School Com'rs v. Gautt, 73 Md. 521, 21 Atl. 548; Veghte v. Bernards Tp., 42 N. J. Law, 338; People v. Wayne County Auditors, 41 Mich. 223. 128 Lewis Ex'rs v. Barry, 72 Pa. 18; Attorney General v. Board of Bernards Tp., 42 N. J. Law, 338; Sup'rs of Kalkaska & Antrim Coun ties, 120 Mich. 357, 79 N. W. 567; State v. Hamilton County Com'rs, 49 Ohio St. 301, 30 N. E. 785. 129 State v. Demaree, 80 Ind. 519; People v. Commissioners of Highways of Towns of Dover & Ohio, 158 Ill. 197, 41 N. E. 1105; Perrine v. Hamlin, 48 Mich. 641; People v. Macon County Sup'rs, 19 Ill. App. 264; Bigelow v. Brooks, 119 Mich. 208, 77 N. W. 810; State v. Cloud County Com'rs, 39 Kan. 700, 18 Pac. 952; Inhabitants of Brunswick V. City of Bath, 90 Me. 479, 38 Atl. 532; People v. Post, 30 Mich. 353; Dutton v. State, 42 Neb. 804, 60 N. W. 1042; People v. Queens County way, ,130 keep streets and highways in repair,' 131 remove obstructions from street,132 hear and determine charges against officer,133 issue permit to construct walk, in lieu of tax therefor,134 appoint arbitrators,135 submit designated proposition to electors,136 remove photograph from rogues gallery,137 furnish county officer with office room,138 apportion state into legislative districts,139 execute and deliver municipal bonds to purchaser,140 issue and deliver warrants and checks,141 establish toll rates for ferry,142 make an appropriation for a designated purpose,143 143 designate Sup'rs, 142 N. Y. 271, 36 N. E. 1062; State v. City of Ahnapee, 99 Wis. 322, 74 N. W. 783. 130 Throckmorton V. State, 20 Neb. 647; People v. Champion, 16 Johns. (N. Y.) 61; People v. Collins, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 56; Bell v. Pike County Ct., 61 Mo. App. 173, 1 Mo. App. Rep'r. 351; Highbaugh v. Hardin County Ct., 99 Ky. 16, 34 S. W. 706; Hitchcock v. Hampden County Com'rs, 131 Mass. 519; Monroe County Sup'rs v. State, 63 Miss. 135. Furnish road overseers with road inplements. 131 Uniontown Borough v. Com., 34 Pa. 293; Hammar v. City of Covington, 60 Ky. (3 Metc.) 494; Rice v. Middlesex Highway Com'rs, 30 Mass. (13 Pick.) 225. Complete unfinished highway accepted by commissioners. Michigan City v. Roberts, 34 Ind. 471. Make street improvement. 132 People v. City of Bloomington, 38 Ill. App. 125; French v. Common Council of South Haven, 85 Mich. 135, 48 N. W. 174; Highway Com'rs of Yorktown v. People, 66 Ill. 339. 133 Goodfellow v. Common Council of Detroit, 102 Mich. 343, 60 N. W. 760. 134 State v. City of St. Louis, 158 Mo. 505, 59 S. W. 1101. 135 Cleveland v. Board of Finance & Taxation, 38 N. J. Law, 259. 136 State v. Juneau County Sup'rs, 38 Wis. 554. 137 People v. York, 27 Misc. 658, 59 N. Y. Supp. 418. 138 Cleary v. Eddy County, 2 N.. D. 397, 51 N. W. 586; Broaddus v. Essex County Sup'rs, 99 Va. 370, 38 S. E. 177. 139 State v. Campbell, 48 Ohio St. 435, 27 N. E. 884. 140 Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Jefferson County Com'rs, 12 Kan. 127; Smalley v. Yates, 36 Kan. 519, 13 Pac. 845; Morris v. Williams, 23 Wash. 459, 63 Pac. 236; New Orleans Liquidation Board v. Hart, 118 U. S. 136; People v. Common Council of New York, 45 Barb. (N. Y.) 473. 141 Morley v. Power, 73 Tenn. (5 Lea) 691; Maynard v. Freeman (Tex. Civ. App.) 60 S. W. 334; McLaughlin v. Charleston County Com'rs, 7 S. C. 375. 142 East Boston Ferry Co. v. City of Boston, 101 Mass. 488. 143 State v. Board of Finance, 53 N. J. Law, 62, 20 Atl. 755; Humboldt County v. Churchill County Com'rs, 6 Nev. 30; State v. Wayne County Council, 157 Ind. 356, 61 N. E. 715; Marengo County v. Lyles (Ala.) 12 So. 412; South St. Bridge Com'rs v. City of Philadelphia, 3 Brewst. (Pa.) 596; Boston Water Power Co. v. City of Boston, 143 Mass. 546. official newspaper,144 establish water rates,145 subscribe for stock of a corporation,146 and place petitioner on police pension rolls.147 § 1116. Writ directed to a public corporation as such. In a number of cases it has been held that the writ may properly be directed to the corporation or governing body sought to be coerced eo nomine, and that the persons constituting the governing body of the corporation, or the board or body need not be joined as respondents.148 It would seem to be better practice to direct the writ to the corporation or the board or body and the persons constituting the same, as such.149 § 1117. Who may apply for writ. When public rights are to be subserved, the public law officers should apply for the writ.150 If they decline to institute proceed 144 Bayer v. City of Hoboken, 40 N. J. Law, 152; People v. Troy Common Council, 78 N. Y. 33. 145 Jacobs v. San Francisco County Sup'rs, 100 Cal. 121, 34 Pac. 630. 146 Napa Valley R. Co. v. Napa County Sup'rs, 30 Cal. 435. 147 People v. Martin, 131 N. Y. 196, affirming 57 Hun, 587, 11 N. Y. Supp. 123. 148 Pegram v. Cleaveland County Com'rs, 65 N. C. 114; Fisher v. City of Charleston, 17 W. Va. 598; State v. City of Milwaukee, 25 Wis. 122; Leavenworth County Com'rs v. Sellew, 99 U. S. 624; Williams v. City of New Haven, 68 Conn. 263; People v. Getzendaner, 137 Ill. 234; Wren v. City of Indianapolis, 96 Ind. 213; State v. Bailey, 7 Iowa, 390; Cooperrider v. State, 46 Neb. 84; Boody v. Watson, 64 N. H. 162; Brown v. Assessors of Taxes of Rahway, 53 N. J. Law, 156; Mayor v. Lord, 76 U. S. (9 Wall.) 409; People v. City of Bloomington, 63 III. 207. Writ properly issued to "mayor and aldermen" of a city. People v. Common Council of New York, 3 Abb. Dec. (N. Y.) 502. Common council. Rex v. Taylor, 3 Salk. 231; Rex. v. City of Oxford, 6 Adol. & E. 349; Rex v. City of Abingdon, 2 Salk. 700. 149 Cooperrider v. State, 46 Neb. 84. In City of Louisville v. Kean, 57 Ky. (18 B. Mon.) 9, a proceeding against the individuals was treated as one against the corporation and the corporation allowed to appeal. The peremptory writ may be directed to the individuals though the alternative writ was issued to the corporation, or corporate body, eo nomine. People v. Champion, 16 Johns. (N. Y.) 61; Wren v. City of Indianapolis, 96 Ind. 206; State v. City of Milwaukee, 25 Wis. 122. 150 Ter. v. Cole, 3 Dak. 301; Bobbett v. State, 10 Kan. 9; Attorney General v. City of Boston, 123 Mass. 460; People v. Board of Canvassers, ings, when proceedings ought to be instituted, the courts may on a proper showing permit others to proceed in the name of the state, so that justice may not fail.151 The general rule is that a private individual applying for a writ of mandamus must show in himself a specific legal right and the want of a specific legal remedy. If granted it must be in pursuit or protection of some particular right which he holds independent of that which he has in common with the public at large.1 On the other hand there are cases holding that where the act to be done is of a public nature, in the performance of which the public is interested, its performance may be compelled by mandamus sued out on the relation of any citizen having an interest in the performance of the act.15 153 129 N. Y. 360; Doolittle v. Selectmen of Branford, 59 Conn. 402; Weeks v. Smith, 81 Me. 538. 151 Bobbett v. State, 10 Kan. 9; People v. State Auditors, 42 Mich. 422; Van Horn v. State, 51 Neb. 232, 70 N. W. 941. 152 Bamford v. Hollinshead, 47 N. J. Law, 439; Heffner v. Com., 28 Pa. 108; Sanger v. Kennebec County Com'rs, 25 Me. 291; People v. Green, 29 Mich. 121; Bobbett v. State, 10 Kan. 15; Bates v. Overseers of Poor of Plymouth, 80 Mass. (14 Gray) 163; Weeks v. Smith, 81 Me. 538. 153 Baird v. Kings County Sup'rs, 138 N. Y. 95, 33 N. E. 827; State v. Marshall County Judge, 7 Iowa, 186; Pumphrey v. City of Baltimore, 47 Md. 145; Van Horn v. State, 51 Neb. 232, 70 N. W. 941. Compare Throckmorton v. State, 20 Neb. 647, 31 N. W. 232; State v. Weld, 39 Minn. 426. Napier v. Poe, 12 Ga. 170. “Although mandamus in England is denominated a prerogative writ, yet it lies in Georgia, at the instance of any individual, who having a legal right has no remedy other than mandamus for its assertion." 152 In Village of Glencoe v. People, 78 Ill. 382, it was said "where the object is the enforcement of a public right, the people are regarded as the real party, and the relator need not show that he has any legal interest in the result. It is enough that he is interested, as a citizen, in having the laws executed." See, also, City of Ottawa v. People, 48 Ill. 235; Hall v. People, 57 Ill. 310. In Union Pac. R. Co. v. Hall, 91 U. S. 355, per Justice Strong: "There is, we think, a decided preponderance of American authority in favor of the doctrine, that private persons may move for a mandamus to enforce a public duty, not due to the government as such, without the intervention of the government law-officer. The principal reasons urged against the doctrine are, that the writ is prerogative in its nature,-a reason which is of no force in this country, and no longer in England,-and that it exposes a defendant to be harrassed with many suits. An answer to the latter objection is, that granting the writ is discretionary with the court, and it may well be assumed that § 1118. The writ in connection with the audit, allowance and payment of claims. The general principles governing the presentment,154 audit and allowance,155 and payment of claims,150 have been discussed elsewhere in this treatise. Where it is the duty of an officer or board to examine and audit claims against a municipal corporation, mandamus will lie to compel him or it to act and either allow or reject the claim,157 but not, when discretionary powers exist with reference to the matter, to direct how they shall be decided,158 or that the claim be allowed for a designated amount.159 If the amount of the claim is fixed by law,160 or has been determined by some other it will not be unnecessarily granted." 154 See Vol. 2, § 487. 155 See Vol. 2, § 490. 156 See Vol. 2, § 492. 157 Poling v. Board of Education, 50 W. Va. 374, 40 S. E. 357; Cheney v. Newton, 67 Ga. 477; People v. Schieren, 89 Hun, 220, 35 N. Y. Supp. 64; Pyke v. Steunenberg, 5 Idaho, 614, 51 Pac. 614; Bierman v. Seymour, 66 N. J. Law, 122, 48 Atl. 1005; Croasman v. Kincaid, 31 Or. 445, 49 Pac. 764; Chipman v. Wayne County Auditors, 127 Mich. 490, 86 N. W. 1024; People v. Macomb County Sup'rs, 3 Mich. 475; State v. Slocum, 34 Neb. 368, 51 N. W. 969; State v. Hamilton County Com'rs, 26 Ohio St. 364; People v. Elmira Auditors, 82 N. Y. 80; State v. McCardy, 62 Minn. 509, 64 N. W. 1133; Files v. State, 42 Ark. 233; Howell v. Cooper, 2 Colo. App. 530, 31 Pac. 523. People v. City of New York, 3 Misc. (N. Y.) 131. A statute permissive in its terms authorizing a board to audit a certain claim held to impose a duty to examine and audit the claim which is enforceable by mandamus. 158 Pyke v. Steunenberg, 5 Idaho, 614, 51 Pac. 614; Robey v. Prince George's County Com'rs, 92 Md. 150, 48 Atl. 48; State v. Slocum, 34 Neb. 368, 51 N. W. 969; State v. Merrell, 43 Neb. 575, 61 N. W. 754; People v. Oneida County Sup'rs, 24 Hun, 413; Simons v. Military Board of Virginia, 99 Va. 390, 39 S. E. 125; Whitesides v. Stuart, 91 Tenn. 710, 20 S. W. 245; Sawyer v. Mayhew, 10 S. D. 18, 71 N. W. 141; Osborn v. Clark, 1 Ariz. 397. Writ will not lie to compel allowance of claim previously rejected. Payne v. State Board of WagonRoad Com'rs, 4 Idaho, 384, 39 Pac. 548; City of Bangor v. County Com'rs, 87 Me. 294; Heman v. Flad, 108 Mo. 614, 18 S. W. 1128; Osborn v. Clark, 1 Ariz. 397, 25 Pac. 797. 159 People v. Schieren, 89 Hun, 220, 35 N. Y. Supp. 64; Burton v. Furman, 115 N. C. 166, 20 S. E. 443. 160 In re Woffenden, 1 Ariz. 237. 25 Pac. 647; Peck v. Powell, 62 Vt. 296, 19 Atl. 227; Fowler v. Peirce, 2 Cal. 165; Shattuck v. Kincaid, 3L Or. 379, 49 Pac. 758. |