
    The Iowa News Co. v. Harris et al.
    1. Board of Supervisors: selection op oppicial newspapers: CERTIORARI to review. The proprietor of a newspaper has no sueh interest in the selection by the board of supervisors of the official papers of the county as to enable him to maintain an action of certiorari to review the proceedings of the board in making the selection, to the end that his own paper may be selected as one of such papers; and this, even though his paper be one of the two having the largest circulation in the county. See Welch v. Supervisors, 23 Iowa, 199; Smith v. Toram', 37 Id., 89.
    
      Appeal from Fremont Gireuit Court.
    
    Thursday, December 13.
    The defendants constitute tbe board of supervisors of Fremont county. Tbe plaintiff applied for a writ of certiorari to test tbe legality of tbe proceedings of tbe board in selecting tbe Sidney Union Advocate and Farragut News as tbe official papers of Fremont county. Tbe plaintiff averred in its petition that it is a corporation resident in Fremont county, and publishes tbe Iowa State News, a weekly paper in said county, and that its paper has a larger circulation than tbe papers selected. Tbe plaintiff also averred several acts which it alleges are illegal.
    Tbe defendants demurred to tbe petition upon tbe ground, among others, that tbe petition showed no such interest on tbe part of tbe plaintiff as to entitle it to tbe writ. The court sustained the demurrer and rendered judgment for defendant for costs. Tbe plaintiff appeals.
    
      Stow <& Hammond, for appellant.
    
      Draper dk ThorneTl, for appellees.
   Adams, J.

Tbe plaintiff does not aver that its paper is one of tbe two county papers having tbe largest circulation. It, does, it is true, aver that its paper “by law was entitled to be selected.” Rut this is an averment of a legal conclusion. Besides, it appears to us that, even if the plaintiff had averred that its paper was one of the two papers having the largest circulation, it would not have shown such interest in the matter that it could be held to be entitled to the writ. The public might suffer from the wrongful action of the board, but we are not able to see that the plaintiff would, unless we could presume that the compensation allowed would be overcompensation, and that we could not do. The question presented appears to have been disposed of in Welch v. The Board of Supervisors, 23 Iowa, 199, and Smith v. Yoram, 37 Id., 89. In our opinion the court did not err in sustaining the demurrer..

Affirmed.  