Clark v. Warner

Citations

• 204 P. 929
• 85 Okla. 153
• 1922 OK 16
• 1922 Okla. LEXIS 54

Syllabus

<p>(Syllabus.)</p> <p>1. Mandamus — Exercise of Supreme Court’s Jurisdiction — Matters Publici Juris.</p> <p>The power of the 'Supreme Court to grant mandamus and to hear and determine the same as authorized by section 2, arh 7, of the Oklahoma Constitution, will be exercised only when the questions involved are publici juris, or when some unusual situation exists, whereby not to entertain jurisdiction would work a great' wrong or result in a practical denial of justice. State ex rel. v. Ross, 76 Okla. 11, 183 Pac. 918.</p> <p>2. Same — Highways — Construction — Interest of Public.</p> <p>Good roads witli bridges spanning * the streams intersecting such roads are potent factors in civilization, commerce, and general prosperity. Thu building oí a geneial system of good roads is something in which ilie public .is interested.</p> <p>3. Same — Refusal of County Clerk to Attest Warrants for Bridge Building— Averting Danger of Losing Federal Aid.</p> <p>When the United Slates Government appropriates a large sum of money to be used in the construction of a bridge spanning one of the principal rivers of .the state, and such appropriation is made on condition that tie state or the counties interested shall appropriate a like sum of money for the erection of such bridge, and á eor.ain county, by its board of county commissioners, appropriates a specified part of the sum necessary to meet such government appropriation and the county clerk of raid county refuses to attest the warrant for said sum so appropriated by tlie board of county commissioners, and by reason of such refusal on the part of said county clerk the sum so appropriated by the United States Government is in danger of being withdrawn by it. and thereby the public would lose the benefits of such sum in the building of said bridge, held, that an unusual situation exists whereby not to entertain jurisdiction would work a great wrong and result in a practical denial of justice. Under such facts, the Supreme Court wil