The Placer herald., 1872-10-05
SUPREME COURT HECiSiON.
JULY TER II, 1879.
Filled September 10TH. |

three warrants tor the sum ot hftten hundrcd
dollars each, drawn in favor of the defend
ants, Pratt. Van Vactor and Kinder, sew
orally, against the General Fund of the
county of Placer.
From the complaint and answer we adduce
the following facts:
The plaintiffs was resident Of the county
of Placer. The defendants, Pratt, Van
Vacior and Kinder, constituted the Board of
Supervisors and the defendant, 1lollenbeck.
was the County Treasurer The county
had been the owner Of two thousand five
hundred shares of the stock of the Central
Pacific Railroad Company. BY an act OF
the Legislature of April 4th, 1870, the Su
perviso,s were authorized ''to sell and dis
pose of any or all of the stock held or owned
by aid county in the Central Pacific Rail
road Company, upon such terms and cond
ions as shall to said Board of Supervisors
TO be declared by unanimous vote thereof,
DE deemed expedient and for the best inter
ests of said county" Pursuant to thi.
authority the Supervisors negotitted sale
Ut the stock to ID. O. Mills q Co. for the
sum of two hundred and fifty thousand dol
lars, and by resolution authorized the Chair
man, Van Nactor, to proceed 10 Sacramento
md transfer the stock to the purchasers,
md the SAFE was ihus completed Van Vac
or presented the following written claim
ginst the county:
County of Placer to VIM. Van Nactor
| Dr.
"For services in negotiating and selling
stock OF Placer coun'y i'll the Central Pacific
Railroad and expenses and attorneys fees
fifteen hundred dollars. Auburn, May 9th,
1870"
Each Of the other Supervisors presented Il
similar claim for the same amount. These
cltims were allowed at a regular meeting OF
the Board and the warrants drawn, which
he plaint iif seeks to have cancelled.
l. The act of April 4th, 1870, author
ling the Board Of Supervisors to dispose
of the railroad stock of the county
created no new office and imposed no new
duties upon the Board. 1t pllced some re-
siriclions upon their general powers to sell,
md provided the manner of its exercise in
This particular transaction. But the sale in
pursuance of the statute was the act Of the
Board as such, and in the line Of its ad >isory
official dutis.
The act IN rcgulte fees of Office, etc.
(statutes ISG9-10, page l15) fixes the COM
pensalon Of the Supervisors of the several
counties BY section 81 of the act it is pro-
vided that "oliicers whose tees and compen-
Sation are set forth in this act shall not he
entitled to charge or receive any fees, com
ponsaton or salary not herein enumerated
and provided for" And by Sections 94
hit ono other fees shall be charged than
those specifically set forth herein, no: shall
my fees be charged for any other services
than those mentioned in this act. ."
There can be no doubt that the allowance
of these demands by the Board was not onl,
anwarranted by the statute, but within its
positive prohibitions.
In this view the act would have been lle
sal if it had been an allowance OF extra re-
Enumeration to any salaried or feed officer.
Bat the fact that the several claims were
llowed of indyilulI members Of the Board
brings the case within the reason Of rule OF
more general application. TheBoard of Su-
peryisors are constituted by law guardians OF
he property interests of the county and are
siven the entire control Of lis revenues. They
occupy position of trust, and in that rea-
ion are bound to the same measure of good
f,ith towards the coun'y which is required
of an ordinny trustee toward his cerlu que
trust or AN agent towards his principal. 1t |
: II prevailing rule that ''the law will not
permit one who acts in II tiduciary capacity
TO deal with himself in his individual capa
city" The rule has been carried so far that
the courts have refused 20 inquire into the facts
of part cular care TO ascertain whether the
rustee acted fairly unfairly towards hic |
rcsiue qite trust. The mere fact of the eX-
i-ience of this relationship has been held to
,void the transaction. president, etc, OF
San Diego VS.. San Diego and Los Angeles
Il ,lroad Company, July term, 1872: Aber-
een Railroad Company VS.. Blake, l Nc
Queens r., 46l.)
The present case does not call for the APP
pcation of a rule so strict as tins. We
now of no case in which the attempt by AN
gent to appropriate to his own use the
money of his principal under tie pretence Of
,Myment for services for which he had al
reidy received full compensation has been
phrld by any court.
The proceedings of the Board bore tn"
taint of more than the mere constructive
fraud implied from the relation of ihe pirte+.
Ne think their action was indefensible ana
wholly void.
3. 1t is contended by the appellants that
onceding the invaldity Of the acts of the
Board, the remedy, if any existed, was by
wit of Ger iorari We have held that the
writ of certiorAri will lie against an inferIo'
Board or tribunal only in case in which it
n.s exceeded its jurisdiction, and not in the
Ease of mere irregularity Intervening N the
exercise of an admitted jurisdiction. Cen
tral Pacific Railroad vs.. the Board of Equal
.zaton OF Placer county, April term, lo'2)
he allowance Of claims against the county
IS peculiarly within the province Of the Board
of Supervisors. No excess of jurisdiction :s Il
claimed in the present case. The plaintiff