Show i N fAVOR Of AUEAtH Entitled to Recover on Furniture I Fur-niture Warrant I i 1 WARRANT HOWEVER IS VOID 1 I The County Must Pay the Amount oE II tho Real Value of the Furniture and Auerbach is First in Point of Time as the Equitable Assignee of Andrews So CoLooks Bad for Other Furniture Warrant Holdsrs I Judgment in Favor of Farnsworth I in Suit I Antelope I I Samuel Auerbach surviving I partner of the firm of i Auerbach Brother has won Die first round In the suit brought by him against Salt Lake county coun-ty to recover 15000 and Interest the amount of a warrant issued by the county on June 19 1891 to A I Andrews An-drews Co In part payment for the furniture purchased from that firm for the countys half of the city and county building which warrant was assigned to Auerbach Brother for a consideration considera-tion of 5M700 In money The Judgment which was delivered by Judge lilies is such however a to afford little comfort to the other holders hold-ers of furniture warrants the court holding In effect that the county can only be required to pay the actual value of tho furniture 27000 Instead of 51 973 and that Auerbach has a first claim on It to the amount which he paid for the warrant he holds 11700 and In terest THE COUNTYS CONTENTION l Tho warrant was presented for payment pay-ment on June 30 1891 and was not paid for want of funds When the county became affluent payment was refused on the ground that the warrant was fraudulently Issued that the agent of I Andrews Co bribed the three Selectmen Select-men who let the contract for the furniture furni-ture at t price of 501973 86 when the same was worth only 27000 and that in pursuance of the corrupt agreement the Selectmen Mere to receive 25 percent per-cent of the purchase price The county also contended that the warrant was void because it had been paid over before be-fore the furniture was delivered Byway r By-way of counterclaim the county contended con-tended that It had been damaged in the sum of 28000 by the corrupt contract and that the defendant was entitled to defeat plaintiffs recovery on the warrant war-rant by deducting such proportion at the damages suffered a the amount of plaintiffs warrant bears to the total 1 Issued to amount of warrant Isued pursuant tho alleged fraudulent contracts WARRANT IS VOID Judge Hlles In his opinion finds that tho contracts entered Into by the Selectmen Select-men for the purchase of the furniture were made by the Selectmen individu ally without any order or authority from the County court and therefore any warrants Issued to satisfy such contracts are void Even the opinion opin-ion says If these Selectmen had had authority to make the contracts the evidence shows that some of them at least bargained corruptly with Andrews Co to take a bribe In consideration of tho making of those contracts with Andrews Co and therefore on that ground any warrant Issued or delivered to pay for furniture on such contracts are necessarily void The court also holds that the warrant Is void for the reason that it was issued before the furniture had been received when as a S matter of fact Andrews had no claim against the county It Is then held that as the warrants are void the defendant can have no counterclaim against the holders of them SHOULD HAVE RETURNED THE FURNITURE The court then goes on to state that the successors of the Selectmen who made the corrupt contract when they discovered the fraud and found that I the furniture was worth only 27000 Instead I In-stead of 51073 should have either returned re-turned the furniture to Andrews Co or tendered them its value 27000 Tills I the county did not do but waited till Juno 22 1895 and then by its Selectmen Select-men declared the warrant void AUERBACH HAS FIRST CLAIM The plaintiff then and now the opinion opin-ion says stands in the position of one who han advanced to Andrews Co 14700 of the 27000 purchase price value of the furniture and In the position posi-tion of an equitable assignee of Andrews An-drews Co of C claim against the county for that sum The opinion concludes as follows Although it is not necessary to this decision It may be here noted as elucidating eluci-dating the legal position of Mr Auer bach in this relation to other warrant holders mentioned in the pleadings that so far as this case goes to tho point the evidence shows that he Is first in point of time as the equitable assignee of Andrews Co and therefore there-fore must be first In right to have his claim paid out of the 27000 which the county owes Andrews Co by reason of having kept J the furniture after the discovery of the fraud complained of Let findings and judgment bo entered en-tered In favor of plaintiff and against defendant for 511700 with legal interest Inter-est thereon from the 16th day of February Febru-ary 1895 and the costs of this suit |