The Council Bluffs nonpareil. [volume] (Council Bluffs [Iowa]) 1857-1867, 1858-03-20

The provision Of the code in relation to
the purchase of q sPoor Farm;' il contain
ed in Section soS, on Page $50, and reads
as follows: "The County Court Of each
County is hereby authorized to order the
erection and establishment Of "Pooz
House, in each County, whenever that mea-
sure is deemed advisable, and also the pur-
chase of such Land, as may be deemed neces-
sary for the use Of the same, and the Judge
is invested with full authority to make the
requisite contracts, and to carry such order
into effect, provided the cost Of said Poor
Eouse and land, shall be first estimated
By said Court, and approved BY vote q
the People, ut some regular election" p
Under this provision of the code, to most
minds. it would be apparent, that the pur-
chase of Poor Farm, without a previous
vote of the, people at a general election ap-
proving it, would be void. But it was main
tanned by some, that the action Of the
County Judge in purchasing the Poor Farm,
was Judicial, and that the section of the
code above-quoted, being merely directory,
such action was binding and the purchase
valid, Notwithstanding this non compliance
with this law. L. @r....'..... -...
The Supreme Court of the State of Iowa,
in the case of CAMPBELL Us. Polk County,
took different view of the functions of a
County Judge. They say in this case report
ed in Vol. Sd of CLARK's reports, that ''the
County Judge is possessed of two distinct
characters, the one rs the General Agent Of
the County, and the other, as Judge"
They farther remark, that neither the buy
ing peice of land, nor the agreeing on the
price, is o "Judicial act" This opinion at
once demolshes the argument of those,
who claimed ''that the act Of the Judge, in
buying the farm, was binding, because judi
cial." But it does more, it shows that in
buying land, the County Judge acts as the
s'general agent' of the County. The same
rule therefore, in such case applies to the
County Judge, which governs other agents
namely-'sif an agent transcend the scope
Of his authority, his acts are void and do
not bind his principal" Therefore, think
that the County Judge was correct in deci-
ding that the purchase was void, the people
his principals not having by previous vote
at irregular election, authorized him to nuke
the purchase. '- '... -. =. d.
1t was also commended, ssthat admitting
the purchase to have been void, still the
County Judge, in issuing the Warrants, act
ed judiciallg and that the consideration for
which the Warrants were issued, could not be
inquired into, and must therefore be paid"
This position is fully met and controvert-
ed by the Supreme Court, in the case above
referred to. In reference to this very point
raised in that case, they say, that "the
auditing a claim by the County Judge, is
judicial, in so far as an appeal lies, but
drawing Warrant is ministeyidl," or
his act rs On agent. They further decided
in that case, that the consideration for which
a County Warrant issued can be inquired
into, and if issued without consid Iteration, a
recovery cannot be had upon it. This de-
cision is SO explicit, that to show the utter
fallacy of this second objection, it is only
necessary to remark, that if the purchase
was void, Of course the paper issued in pay
ment, was without consideration, and the
vendor being bound to know the Law, and
therefore the extent Of the Judges authori-,
ty in such case, cannot, plead ignorance in
support Of his right to recover the amount
of the Warrants. ".'rI 97'faa Il. atalg >
Twill only notice one other objection that
was urged against the steps taken to pre-
vent the payment of the Warrants by the
Treasurer Of the County. 1t is this, that
although the consideration Of the Warrants
might be impeached as against the person
in whose favor they were issued, still being
negotiable, If assigned to third person and
innocent holder, such third person could
enforce their payment, without reference to
the consideration--and this opinion was
based upon the analogy supposed to exist
between County Warrant and Bill Of
Exchange or promissory note negotiable by
the Law Merchant. This objection is equal
ly fallacious with the other two. l deny
that a County Warrant is negotiable under
the Law Merchant. What says the code on
page q, in paragraph End, of section loop
just this, the County Judge, in be-
half Of the County, is authorized and re-
quired "to audit all claims for money
against the County, to draw, and seal with
the County Seal, all Warrants on the Trea.
surer for money to be paid out Of the Coun-
ty Treasury" Does this law expressly or
BY implication empower tho County Judge
to draw on the County Treasurer negotiable
paper, to be regarded and treated a. com.
mercial instrument under the Law Mer.
chant9 1t does no such thing. 1t simply
authorizes him, after auditing the claim, to
draw and seal with the County Seal, . War-
rant On the Treasurer, to pay the sum aud
tied. To whom2 Clearly to the person in
whose favor it Is drawn. What is 4 War
rant2 1t has q current meaning--it i de-
lined BY Webster to Be an authority to do
an act. Then, 10 this case, with this law
before me, de6nea County Warrant to be
. writing signed BY the County Judge, and
sealed with these Of the County, authors
lsing the County Treasurer to pay the sum
therein named, to the person in whose favor
Il II issued. and M ,no,e-.rd n tha rn.~.-