Show WEBER EBER COUNTY COUNT WINS INS DECISION IN HIGH COURT I Payment of 1250 for County Agent I Work Is Regular Judgment t of of the Second district court of Weber county In the case cas of Hyrum S S. S Bailey and others against L. L A A. A Van Dyke and others was affirmed by the state supreme court on Friday In an opinion written writ writ- ten by Justice J. J W. W Cherry The litigation was Instituted ted by br Mr Bailey and others as taxpayers of Weber county against the auditor auditor audi audi- tor and treasurer of the county to I restrain the payment of a claim for 1250 In favor of the Utah Agricultural Agri Agri- I cultural which been cultural college had presented and allowed by the board of county commissioners A de demurrer demurrer de- de muri-er muri to th the pl plaintiffs plaintiffs' co complaint I I was sustained and the action disI dismissed dis dis- I missed i From that Judgment the plaintiffs appealed appealed- Involved in the litigation was a acon con contract entered entered into by Weber county the Weber county farm bureau bureau bureau bu bu- bu- bu I reau the Utah Agricultural college college college col col- lege and the director of ot the United I States extension service of the de department department de- de I of agriculture Preston P. P PI i j Thomas was appointed county agent runder r under the provisions ns of the con con- tract The plaintiffs alleged that he did not perform any services such as are contemplated by y law lawor or by said contract contra t but on the contrary contrary contrary con con- performed other service for tor forthe forthe the farm bureau which services were mostly performed outside of S Weber county For this work the I Utah Agricultural college filed a claim with the board of county commissioners commissioners com corn missioners and it was allowed by bythe bythe bythe the board of commissioners It was declared in the complaint that the Utah Agricultural college Incurred field expenses for extension extension extension exten exten- sion agents In Weber county that no annual budget covering the proposed proposed proposed pro pro- posed expenses of the county agent has ever been submitted to the board of county commissioners of Weber county that no one outlined a county program for extension work for each calendar year and that the county commissioners ex exceeded exceeded exceeded ex- ex their legal power in allowIng allowing allowing allow allow- ing the claim and for or the reason reason that the contract out of which the claim arose had not been fully complied co with or performed and the claim presen presented d to the county had hadnot hadnot hadnot not been Itemized Justice Cherry in affirming Judgment judgment judgment Judg judg- ment said The allegations of the complaint in this respect are quite indirect indefinite and story tor tory but assuming that sufficient is alleged to raise an issue of fact upon the performance of the contract contract contract con con- tract and that the claim was Irregularly Irregularly ir irregularly Ir- Ir regularly presented no case is stated stated stated stat stat- ed for an injunction There is no authority of law in this state for an appeal in behalf of the county from which the action of a board of county county county coun coun- ty commissioners In allowing a claim against the county bounty In the audit and allowance of claims against the county the board of county commissioners exercises Ju Judicial judicial judicial ju- ju functions Salt Lake county vs Clinton 39 Utah and its determinations upon questions of I fact In the absence of fraud or Corruption cor corruption Cor- Cor or- or are final and conclusive upon the county Of course If the claim Is of such nature that it is not a legal county charge its payment would be properly properly properly prop prop- erly prevented by judicial tion But such is not the case here As we have seen the claim was of ofa a kind authorized by law In short the payment of a claim against a county which has been allowed will not be enjoined unless the claim Is of such a character as not to be a legal county charge or Its allowance allowance allowance allow allow- ance fraudulent or corrupt Mere I Irregularities In its presentation or allowance or the erroneous decision decision deci deci- sion of questions of fact upon which it rests are not grounds for Judicial judicial judicial Judi judi- cial Interference |