§ 579. Miscellaneous boards.

5 Colo. App. 379, 38 Pac. 839. A board of commissioners is not subject to garnishment. Mesa County Com'rs v. Brown, 6 Colo. App. 43, 39 Pac. 989. County commissioners not subject to garnishment. Jackson v. Hartwell, 8 Johns. (N. Y.) 330. A board of county supervisors is a corporation of special powers. State v. Clarke, 73 N. C. 255; Vankirk v. Clark, 16 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 289.

524 Armstrong v. Landers, 1 Pen. (Del.) 449, 42 Atl. 617; Cook v. Houston County Com'rs, 54 Ga. 163; Chapman v. York County Com'rs, 79 Me. 267, 9 Atl. 728; Elmendorf v. City of New York, 25 Wend. (N. Y.) 693; Pegram v. Cleveland County, 65 N. C. 114; Miller v. Ford, 4 Rich. Law (S. C.) 376.

525 Elkin v. People, 4 Ill. (3 Scam.) 207, 36 Am. Dec. 541; Com. V. Clark, 4 Ky. (1 Bibb.) 533; Clark V. Pratt, 55 Me. 546; Chenango Sup'rs v. Birdsall, 4 Wend. (N. Y.)

453. "The idea that one board of supervisors may rejudge the matters passed upon by a former board is not to be tolerated, though there has been a succession of members, the board of supervisors of Chenango in 1828, is the same body to all legal effects as that which was assembled in 1815 or 1816, and the board of 1828 are as much bound by the acts of a preceding board as if the same natural persons constituted the board at the two distinct periods." People v. Wells, 14 Misc. 226, 35 N. Y. Supp. 672; Scotio Com'rs v. Gherky, Wright (Ohio) 494.

526 Miner's Lesse v. Cassat, 2 Ohio St. 199.

527 People v. Justices of Ct. of Special Sessions, 7 Hun (N. Y.) 214. A board of health may be authorized to enact and enforce ordinances. Trimmier v. Winsmith, 23 S. C. 449.

528 Den d. Osborne v. Tunis, 25 N. J. Law (1 Dutch.) 633.

529 Boston Beer Co. v. Massachusetts, 97 U. S. 25; People v. Perry, 79 Cal. 105; Davock v. Moore, 105 Mich. 120, 63 N. W. 424, 28 L. R. A. 783; State v. Gregory, 83 Mo. 123. The granting of a license to practice medicine is a discretionary matter not enforceable by mandamus where by statute the state board of health has the authority to require from applicants proof of their medical standing and learning. Metropolitan Board of Health v. Schmades, 10 Abb. Pr. (N. S.; N. Y.) 205; Board of Health v. Hutchinson, 39 N. J. Eq. (12 Stew.) 218; Inhabitants of Perth Amboy Tp. v. Smith, 19 N. J. Law (4 Har.) 52; People v. Justices of Ct. of Special Sessions, 7 Hun (N. Y.) 214.

530 Continental Const. Co. v. City of Altoona, (C. C. A.) 92 Fed. 822; City of Lafayette v. State, 69 Ind. 218; State v. Barker, 116 Iowa, 96, 89 N. W. 204, 57 L. R. A. 244; Nelson v. City of New York, 63 N. Y. 535. Powers of Croton aqueduct board considered. Ampt. v. City of Cincinnati, 17 Ohio Circ. R. 516; Ashby v. City of Erie, 85 Pa. 286.

531 People v. Board of Delegates, 14 Cal. 479. "The fire department is a public body created by and under the law. It is a part of the government of the city and county of San Francisco. The chief engineer is a public officer holding his office under and by virtue of the law, receiving a salary like all other city officers, payable out of the city treasury. The board of delegates of the fire department of San Francisco have such powers and such only as the law gives them. Any

person injured by their unauthorized and illegal action may resort to the courts for redress." Citing People v. El Dorado County Sup'rs, 11 Cal. 170; People v. Woodbury, 14 Cal. 43.

532 People v. Wright, 70 Ill. 388; State v. Fox, 158 Ind. 126, 63 N. E. 19, 56 L. R. A. 893. Ind. Acts 1901, p. 132, creating boards of public safety for cities of over 35,000 population and less than 49,000 is void as an infringement of the right of local self-government vested in the people of such cities. The members of such boards to be appointed by the governor of the state and to have exclusive control and the care and management of the fire and police force with power to purchase at the expense of the respective cities all necessary supplies and apparatus and to make all needed repairs. City of Baltimore v. Howard, 20 Md. 335; People v. McClave, 57 Hun, 587, 10 N. Y. Supp. 561.

533 People v. Mallary, 195 Ill. 582; George v. Lillard, 21 Ky. L. R. 483, 51 S. W. 793, 1011; In re Conditional Discharge of Convicts, 73 Vt. 414, 51 Atl. 10, 56 L. R. A. 658.

534 State v. Wilcox, 64 Kan. 789, 68 Pac. 634. Kans. Laws 1901, c. 254, creating a board of medical registration and examination, is not unconstitutional as operating to prevent some persons from following their chosen professions, citing State v. Creditor, 44 Kan. 565, and Williams v. People, 121 Ill. 87. The court say: "It is said that the board of examination and registration may act arbitrarily and unjustly in passing upon the suffi

ciency of the diplomas presented and in determining the qualifications of proposed practitioners, but this is a presumption which the courts cannot indulge. On the contrary we are to presume that this board like all other tribunals, vested with such powers, will act with judgment and conscience and will deal justly with all applicants for license. It is vested with discretion to determine the standing of medical schools from which the diploma comes and also whether a physician who submits to an examination possesses the requisite character, learning and skill; but it is not an arbitrary, capricious and unrestrained discretion. The law requires that the board shall exercise an honest and impartial judgment and discretion, in accordance with just rules and if the board should depart from this course and should act arbitrarily and unjustly toward applicants for license, the courts are open to them and will award them relief and protection."

535 State v. Wright, 17 Mont. 565. "The United States had the power to make the offer to the state, to grant it the lands provided the state would reclaim them. Of this there can be no doubt. Now if the state could accept the offer of the United States at all, it could only act through its legislature, in the exercise of power requisite to making its acceptance effective. That it has attempted to accept the offer is expressed by the first section of the law of 1895, which recites 'that for the purpose of enabling the state to accept the offer of the United

States

and for the pur

pose of reclaiming the lands * in accordance with the terms of said act (of congress) a commission shall be and is hereby created under the name of the State Arid Land Commission,' etc. We know of no constitutional limitation forbidding the legislature of the state from receiving the benefits of congress by way of this offer, where it is especially provided in the law of acceptance that no debts and no liabilities, other than for limited incidental expenses of the commission can ever accrue to the state under its provisions. We believe the acceptance was valid. The legislature having accepted the offer, its next right in the premises was to provide a detailed method whereby the state could execute that acecptance and make it operative. This they have done." State v. Cook, 17 Mont. 529, 43 Pac. 928.

530 Keyes v. Inhabitants of Westford, 34 Mass. (17 Pick.) 273. A committee appointed by the vote of a town to "let out and superintend the making of a new highway" describing it and its character is limited strictly to the authority and provisions or action in excess of the authority imposes no obligation on the town. Ackerly v. Jersey City, 54 N. J. Law, 310, 23 Atl. 666; State v. Davis, 129 N. C. 570, 40 S. E. 112.

537 In re New York Juvenile Asylum, 30 Misc. 633, 74 N. Y. Supp. 364. "The state board of charities is a constitutional body. Its powers and duties are defined by the same instrument which creates the legislature. It is not an inferior

board or body to which the legislature has attempted to delegate powers possessed by it and so the line of authorities cited to establish the proposition that the legislature cannot delegate its powers does not apply." People v. City of Brooklyn, 152 N. Y. 410; People v. Fitch, 154 N. Y. 14, 38 L. R. A. 591.

538 Sun Printing & Pub. Ass'n v. City of New York, 8 App. Div. 230, 40 N. Y. Supp. 607.

539 Hankins v. City of New York, 64 N. Y. 18.

540 Moran v. Ross, 79 Cal. 159; Georgia R. Co. v. Smith, 70 Ga. 694; Pacific Exp. Co. v. Cornell, 59 Neb. 364; People v. Ulster & D. R. Co., 58 Hun (N. Y.) 266; Railroad Commission v. Houston & T. C. R. Co., 90 Tex. 340.

541 Martin v. Townsend, 32 Fla. 327; Hathaway v. City of Des Moines, 97 Iowa, 333; Sherman v. City of Des Moines, 100 Iowa, 88; Damon v. Inhabitants of Granby, 19 Mass. (2 Pick.) 345. Building committee appointed by town. Upjohn v. Inhabitants of Taunton, 60 Mass. (6 Cush.) 310; Simpson v. City of North Adams, 174 Mass. 450, 54 N. E. 878; Hawkins v. Carroll County Sup'rs, 50 Miss. 735; State v. Borden, 164 Mo. 221, 64 S. W. 172; State v. May, 106 Mo. 488; State v. Hastings, 37 Neb. 96, 55 N. W. 774. Action of a board of public lands and buildings is quasi judicial in passing upon claims against the state and selecting the subordinate officers and employes. People v. Oneida County Sup'rs, 24 Hun, 413, 73 N. Y. Supp. 1098, af

firmed 68 App. Div. 650, 74 N. Y. Supp. 1142; Nelden v. Clark, 20 Utah, 382; Territory v. Stewart, 1 Wash. St. 98, 8 L. R. A. 106.

542 Lewis v. Colgan (Cal.) 44 Pac. 1081. "The board of examiners is a creature of the statute, possessing no authority except that conferred upon it by the law of its creation. In its relation to the several departments of the government it is simply a local board exercising limited powers, taking to itself nothing of authority not clearly conferred or necessarily implied from the language of the statute under which it acts and from which its authority emanates." Citing Colusa County v. De Jarnett, 55 Cal. 373; Newcomb v. City of Indianapolis, 141 Ind. 451, 40 N. E. 919, 28 L. R. A. 732.

543 Hanrick v. Board of Education, 28 Kan. 388.

544 People v. Lodi High School Dist., 124 Cal. 694, 57 Pac. 660; Murphy v. City of Peoria, 119 Ill. 509; Davis v. City of Litchfield, 155 Ill. 384; Police Jury v. Tardos, 22 La. Ann. 58. Containing a review of Louisiana legislation relative to the appointment of duties and pow. ers of levee commissioners. Bass v. State, 34 La. Ann. 494; Brown v. Levee Com'rs, 50 Miss. 468; Richardson v. Levee Com'rs, 68 Miss. 539; Egyptian Levee Co. v. Hardin, 27 Mo. 495; Raymond's Estate v. Borough of Rutherford, 55 N. J. Law, 441.

545 State v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 97 Mo. 348, 10 S. W. 436. A determination of a state board of

taxation or equalization that a bridge is a toll bridge is not conclusive. Virginia & T R. Co. v. Ormsby County Com'rs, 5 Nev. 341.

546 Blanchard V. Hartwell, 131 Cal. 263, 63 Pac. 349; Wilkison v. Children's Guardians of Marion County, 158 Ind. 1, 62 N. E. 481; Renaud v. State Court of Mediation & Arbitration, 124 Mich. 648, 83 N. W. 620, 51 L. R. A. 458. A rehearing cannot be granted in a trial determined by the state court of mediation and arbitration for the reason that such a power was not conferred upon it by Comp. Laws, §§ 559-568, under which it was created.

State v. Scott, 18 Neb. 597. The discretionary action of a board of educational lands and funds in refusing a lease at a less rate to one who has refused to carry out the bid at a higher rate will not be interfered with by the courts.

In re Assessment of City of Passaic, 54 N. J. Law, 156, 23 Atl. 517; State v. City of Cincinnati, 23 Ohio St. 445. Where, by act of the legislature, the management and control of a public hospital in Cincinnati is vested in the board of trustees as an independent body, the

549 Chase v. City Treasurer, 122 Cal. 540; Knight v. City of Eureka, 123 Cal. 192; In re Taxpayers & Freeholders of Plattsburgh, 27 App.

city can take no part in its government.

547 Town Council of Livingston v. Pippin, 31 Ala. 542; State v. Tryon, 39 Conn. 183.

548 In re Inman, 8 Idaho, 398, 69 Pac. 120; People v. Wright, 70 Ill. 388; People v. Mallary, 195 Ill. 582. An act which authorizes the board of managers of the state reformatory to transfer to the penitentiary those who subsequent to their committal can be shown to have been more than twenty-one years of age is unconstitutional because conferring judicial power on the board.

State v. Fox, 158 Ind. 126, 63 N. E. 19, 56 L. R. A. 893; Davock v. Moore, 105 Mich. 120, 63 N. W. 424, 28 L. R. A. 783. Act Feb. 27, 1895, creating a board of health for Detroit does not contravene Mich. Const. art. 15, § 14, which provides that "judicial officers of cities and villages shall be appointed at such time and in such manner as the legislature may direct."

State v. Borden, 164 Mo. 221, 64 S. W. 172. Mo. Act March 14, 1901, entitled "an act creating a board of public works in cities of 100,000 and less than 150,000 inhabitants," is unconstitutional as violating that

Div. 353, 50 N. Y. Supp. 356; Attorney General v. Lowell, 67 N. H. 198; Ampt v. City of Cincinnati, 17 Ohio Circ. R. 516.