Picotte v. Watt
Idaho Supreme Court
APPEAL from District Court, Alturas County. Corporate powers cannot be enlarged by by-laws and ordinances. (Thompson v. Roe, 22 How. 422; Katzenberger v. Aberdeen, 121 H. S. 172, 7 Sup. Ct. Eep. 947.) When a particular method of exercising any corporate power of a municipality is prescribed by statute, no other can be adopted.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from District Court, Alturas County. Corporate powers cannot be enlarged by by-laws and ordinances. (Thompson v. Roe, 22 How. 422; Katzenberger v. Aberdeen, 121 H. S. 172, 7 Sup. Ct. Eep. 947.) When a particular method of exercising any corporate power of a municipality is prescribed by statute, no other can be adopted. (Anthony■ v. Jasper Go., 101 H. S. 697; Ogden v. Daviess Go., 102 H. S. 637; Wells v. Supervisors, 102 H. S. 625; Kelly v. Multnomah, Go., 18 Or. 356, 22 Pac. 1110.) Whenever equitable grounds — ■ such as irreparable injury, multiplicity of suits, fraud, etc.—…
1Opinion of the CourtHuston, 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…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Dunbar v. Board of Commissioners of Canyon CountyIdaho Supreme Court · 1897
- Ada County v. GessIdaho Supreme Court · 1895
- Harrison v. Board of County Com'rsIdaho Supreme Court · 1948
- County of Ada v. Bullen Bridge Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1896
- Rogers v. HaysIdaho Supreme Court · 1893
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.