Heintz v. Moulton

Citations

• 7 S.D. 272
• 64 N.W. 135
• 1895 S.D. LEXIS 71

Syllabus

<p>1. In mandamus proceedings to enforce a private right, the real party in interest should he named as plaintiff, and such proceeding should not be entitled in the name of the state of the relation of such party. Howard v. City of Huron, (S. D.) 59 N. W. 833; 5 S. D. 539.</p> <p>2. The chairman of the district school board is not a necessary party defendant in such proceeding, when it affirmatively appears that he has at all times held himself in readiness to perform the acts sought to be enforced by the court’s mandate. Smith v. Lawrence, 49 N. W. 7, 2 S. D. 135.</p> <p>3. If the law imposes upon a school board unconditionally an imperative duty which it neglects to perform, no personal demand upon the members thereof is required. The law is continually demanding, and the failure to perform constitutes a refusal.</p> <p>4. Mandamus will not lie to control or dictate the action of school officers in matters officially intrusted to their judgment, or concerning which they are authorized to exercise a sound discretion.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.</p>