Show COUNTY WARRANT CASE OASE DECIDED Judge Hies lilies Hands Down In a Number of Important Gases Cases I tins 1 SaltA Iad sd JUdge lies lilies today hand handed down clown de In n a number ot of caes cases the most Important ot of which were Samuel Auer Auerbach Auerbach bach vs Salt Lake CI City Daniel far Har farrington rington vs s 1 F T I Farnsworth and Mar Mary Ferguson vs S Isac Isaac Feguson Ferguson In the tho first named action Judgment Wa was given for tor plaintiff and In the other two auls the defendants came out winners In the CS case of Samuel Auerbach sur surviving partner ot of Auerbach Dros Bros against Salt Lake county coulty Judge lilies gave for tor the plaintiff for with legal interest from February Iry ary IS 15 19 1691 Plaintiff sued to recover and legal J interest on a by the county In June 1891 81 In favor ot of A If H Andrews Company the ChIcago o fur tur allure dealer dealers Ou On the day the Warrant was issued Andrews Co assigned I to toI I F Auerbach Bro for tor On the ot of June JUM 1694 1691 the arrant Wi was presented to the county tre treasurer urr for tor payment hut but was not paid for tor want ot of lunda funds and the tact fact ot of nonpayment for tor that cause was endor endorsed on the back backof of the tho warrant warrant Some time when Andrews Company had delivered and let set up the tho furniture and SIttings on th the coun tys tye tlde aisle ot of the Joint building tho th cOln coln t ty r repudiated the Andrews warrant and refused tu to jay pay I It Js its wal taa based on two grounds viz Iz 11 First r t that tha t the county court which pa passed d the order authorizing the luu anco ot of the warrant consisted of oC three and a probate judge th that t the former took I It upon them themselves elves to pass pal t the e resolution for the Of the furniture without consulting the member of the court that Andrws Andrewa I bi bill amounted amount to when the goods goads were not worth more than that a secret agreement was made be between between tween Andrws Andreas Co and tue selectmen whereby the latter were to receIve per pcr cent of at the fraudulent price and that for tor thes these reasons the tho warrant sUed on a as wel well as others In lIke car ease was Isas void In la law Second that the tho warrant wa was void old because It wn Issued tu to Andrews Co before the Ios goods had ben been delivered and that no itemized statement of at the goods delivered and verified caim claim wu was presented to th the court for lor allowance os as required by statute fly Dy reason of oC the alleged fraudulent contracts between Co arid the three selectmen the county set up a counter claim ot of and Insisted that any JUdgment that b be entered on the warrant sued on should be Bcalel sealed down I so that I It should bring In judgment such proportion only of oC Its ts face tace vAlue as would bear to the total tota I amount of th the se soy oral warrants issued on the furnIture deal On the these two defenses the tho court says TIm THE DECISION In respect to the first deeme defense I fInd front from the evidence that the cone con tracts ot of March 6 1191 and that ot of May 7 1 11 1694 vero mails made by the select selectmen men individually without any order or authority from the count county court or other uther legal authority and there there therefore tore fore any warrants issued or delivered to satisfy such contracts are void That even It if these selectmen ha had ha authority to make these contracts the tho evidence shows that some Bome of 01 thorn at least bargained with An Andr dr ws t Co to take a bribe In con of at the making of thO con can contracts tracts to Andrws Co and thle there therefore torel fore on that account any any warrant Is issued luea sued or delivered to pay for tor furniture on such contracts oe are necessarily void old The evidence shows that the tho con can contract tract ot of Juno June 19 1191 Is In ont one sense an Independent between the county count curt court on the one part and Andrws Andrews Co at ott the tho other for the delver delivery of oC worth of oC furnIture under certain conditions need named In the he bond The ot of the tho furniture for tor the use trio ot of the building Wi was an act Culo within the authority ot of the count county court courtIn courtIn In the transaction ot of June mh the I court was acting In Its lis capacity 4 as such In the ordinary way Whist this 1 Is so I sti still cannot In the light ot of al all the evidence como comae to an any other judgment than that the acton action of at some ot of the tho members ot of the county court on that occasion WI was infected wih with the tho and corpt corrupt bar bargaining gaining with lh Andrews Co which are evidenced by the transactions of oC Marci MarciC C 6 and May a 7 me 1591 I It seems to m me I that those bad acts act were In great part I Ithe the motive and Inducement which led I such luch members ot of the court to ote to topas pas pass the order ot of June 19 1694 Ind and therefore that thal order for tor the issuance and delc delivery of this warrant having thus had I as Is Its mote motive and Intent the tho furtherance ot of those unauthorized and schemes the warrant tarrant Is v void ld and should b be disregarded and an annuled annulled Moreover the ot of the l Parties upon the record ad and the evidence shows hint It vas I issued and delivered when no goos goods ha had been do livered when then no claim agaInst the tho county hn had been presented to te the curt court Itemized and verified D as the statute required The statute pro videO that the cour court must not alow allow any caim claIm against an any county or dl dis district fund without such Itemized and verified claim beIng frt first tnt In Inthe the ordinary wa way A 1 statute Both a as that must mut 0 be strictly observed and pursued betor before n a warrant can be Je sued The Tho cours courts of the country ho have always strictly enforced such statutes I INo observance No laxity should of at them b be permitted In to the Any relaxation ot of obedience Is sure lure I Ito to lead to carelessness or corrupt I Inbur abuses In the admInistration of the fiscal affairs of the county Ther There tore on that ground I deide decide th that t the tho warrant ll sued d on I is void old Inasmuch a as the warrant sued on onu onas u as wel well as the other warrants men mentioned toned In the cunter counter ot of defend defendant ant are void nothing can b be asserted of theta them by holder holders ot of them against the COUlt county therefore It would seem cm to that no claim for tor damage damages can bo be asserted 1 the county by WRY way of counter claim a against 1 a holder of at any of at such warrants for the simple Iea tea teason son that the count county can not be dam damage damaged age aged by that which Is void ol In tact fact and andIn andIn In law and therefore the suit for tor dam damages damages ages on the counter caim claim ot defend defendant ant should be dismissed The question yet et rem remains for tor de cllon cislon wh whether upon a fair construction of the pleadings and application ot of the th evidence thereto the plaintiff IJ Ia en Ute to roer recover judgment upon A quantum for tor the amount paLl Va b by his tn drin tu to Andr Andrew Co part of the tre true talus ot of the tur focal lUre actually delIvered to the county count and still retained by it a as the o 0 tM transaction before referd referred to The pleadings or of plaintiff on this branch of oC the case are not artificially drawn nevertheless after aUn attentive consideration ot of theta them I 1 hav have decided b by a a liberal construction of oC theta them QI as I a whole they must b be taken to mean that J plaintiff had thereby stated two cate causes ot of acton action vI viz Q a cause causo ot of action upon the warrant and I a cause ot of acton action tor Os having advanced to Andrews Co Con Coa n a part lt of the actual cash value alue of oC the tho property still retained by the county anti that Auerbach and Brother Drother ther there therefore tore fore become equitable assignees of An Andrws Co of t a claim against th the county for such value to the extent of at atthe the advances so 80 made by them themOn themOn On this later latter branch ot of the case cale or leond second cause causo of oC action the lone of at the tho partes parties upon the rr record o and d the evidence show that Auerbach arid ond Dr Bra received the warrant from Andrews 8 Co Ce In the ordinary coure course ot of business and paid thom them for tor forit It and In that wn way paid that sum Burn on Oh the furniture delivered to the county under the bond bondI I It I Is admitted that worth of at furniture Wal was delivered b by Andrews Go to the county and wn was by them themI I net t up tip In the building and Is yet vel In Is Ise its tie e and possession as provided for tor bond WARRANTS PROPERLY REPUDIATED TED In Januar January al all the tho selectmen who were ero engaged In the tho unlawful of oC 1894 went out ot of ot of lice ansi and other tok took their place places nIl as member members ot of the county curt court The evidence shows that the lie new board boar of oC selectmen on their no nc ce cession lon to had reason to be from the tho information derived from various arlous sources that t there isas a fraud In the furniture contract the tho former selectmen n and Andrews Co and ond thereupon the they commenced an with such results that thata a as carl early D as the middle or of they bame convinced that the lie Contracts of oC Marb Mareb 6 May 7 1891 result or of the corrupt bargain b be between tW tween n Andrews Co and the selectmen before mentioned and they then d deter determined ler lermine mine mined to contest the payments ts of the tho warrants ll as bin being voId old for tor fraud but Cli alsi to retain possession or of the lure ture In this state of the case casc I de do eWe cide as ae matter of at lots law that It wa was the duly ot of the county court to repudiate the warrants and r return tum the furnIture to Andrw t Co or to pay or oter offer to topa topa pa Andrewl Co or Auerbach Brother who were Co Cos equItable the actual value alue ot Of the furniture I If the county court still ti elected to hold it ThIs tue tho cun coun county ty cour court did not do but k kept pt the fur Cur furniture and waie tl till the ot of Juno June 1895 when by n a resolution entered on Its that ta day the tho count county court declared the warrant void old and dIrected the count not t to paI pay it Under th the admitted acts of this ca case Andrews Andrewa Co were tro entitled to hare hao their furnIture hack back or 10 In money to the actual thereof Which Was and I is still In the hands ot of Ito tho county vs va Wo WOOd U S The he lon to do justice reata upon all natural artificial al persons or and I it 1 ci county obtain money mOMY or prop property erty of oC others authority the lie la law Independent ot of any statute wi will r restitution or compensation 8 Fulon Fulton 10 Wil Wail The nOo abose Is a dictum by the tho Unite UnIted Stat States Supreme CUr In that cas case but It Is law The Auer bach then stood and the plaintIff nol now tan In the tho position of one ha has advanced to Andrews Andreas t Co 1100 ot of the prIce value ot of the furniture and In the po sion eltion o of an equitable assignee ot of Jn isn p drewa Co Ce ota of a claim against Ih the county for that sum lum wih with I legal al Interest from the lie time wh when n the county ought to have either the furniture o offered to 10 pay Is Its actual market value alue which Into I Ind find wal va the do day 6 of February m I think interest li is allowable from that time beal because from that tm time the to pay what th the furniture was waR actually wort worth must b be d deemed me ss as n it demand un under dec der the tho evidence In cas case LEGAL POSITrON POSITION Although I it Is not necessary to 10 this decision It mo many 1 be hr here noted S as elucidating the legal position or of Mr ch In thIs relatIOn to other war warrant rant holden mentone mentioned In the he pled Ings ings that s so far Car a as his ease Q e go goes to the pint poInt the evidence shows that he heis is II In pint point ot of time as the assIgnee ot of Andrews Co and there tON tore must 0 be frt first In r right ht to have hae his hll paid out ot of the 10 which the county count owes Andrew Co by ra ron 1 ot of having kept the tho furniture after atter the or of discovery c cit th the faud fraud complained ln lnor Ll Let findings Ind end jud judgment men be en entered entered In flor favor of oC plaintiff and anel against defendant tor or lh interest ter theresa n from the day ot of February 1695 and tho ho costs of at this suit ODI OGDEN HILtS Distrct District JUdge Dated Salt Lake Jan 1900 19 |