Dodgeville chronicle. [volume] (Dodgeville, Wis.) 1862-current, 1873-10-31


the owner of the original CT old judgment
(and il cannot be foretold who that owner
may beg, may enforce the collection of the
entire original Judgement against the
county: The money collected at least to
the amount of 65 cents on the riolasr, he
holds as trustee Of the county, and is re-
quired 70 Apply il to the T,nvment Of the
new bonds, or Judgments thereon. If he
sasem'a pocket pr niisapply this money,
sae holder. Of the new bonds. and judg-
mentsthereon1 could still require the county
to pay their judgments in full On default
Of the. county to pay a,e new bond, the
owner Of. the old or original judgment be-
comes trustee Of che county. The judg.
ment is assignasie, and the county cam
not at present, cor lecture who, or what
sort of ran their future trustee may be.
But whoever he'msy be, on default of the
county to pay the new bond, such trustee
in spite Of the new bond holder may pro
coed and collect the entire original judg
ment. Having collected it. should he
prove defaulter, and NOT apply the mons
ey collected in satisfaction of the judg-
mention the new' bond lit might happen
the county would oe compelled to pay the
amount of the new bopd,txiice
BY THIS compromise, 1.-THE County board
has invested persons unknown to them,
with ~feafful powers They have commit
ted TIE funds of the county -toe persons
wholly unknown~to them, and from whom
they have no security. ttf at they will prop
erly apply the funds of the. county. They
have made any person to whom the old
judgment may be tEsnsfered their trustee.
They have no guarantee that the money
he collects on the sid judgment will be
faithfully appliedSy him in satisfaction Of
the new bond issued as a contingent salts
fsotion of the olt. Judgment. ! If he fails
so to applyit, Dc course the holder of the
new bond may enforce paymentAgainst the
county to the. 7smount, of his bond. In
the'actual WORKING out Of the compromise
I assume as probability, not as q remote
or imsgina.y danger, that the county will
have to payG vice over the amount of the
new bonds, or some Of them-once to their
unknown trustee, and once TO the holder
ofsherow bond till for aught know,
therssppRemise may be beneficial to the
county. THE Court is not supervisor of
rowacesraty. 1t may be reduced to such
straits, that it had better trust the hon
csty d the owners Of the Old judgments
for ,s-s time being, urkno wn as they may
70; rttsc cousty might b, tier submit to the
r,essibi lity of their dishonesty than en-
aasnscr its political existence by futile ex--
accidents to avoid the obligations that such
feoaitical existence imposes. And except
sasc dishonesty of the owner OF the old
Judgment, who .cennet be removed from
his trust, l sea 80 other dangertwhich the
county cannot avoid if it uses the ,ueces-
sary diligence. Whatever is paid on The
new bond me county can require to be
credited IN the old judgment. Whatever
is COLI ,ctcd on the judgment an honest
trustee will apply in satisfaction of the
n sw bond or judgment thereon. 49,. 3
But this is a question: for the County
Board, who in law represent the people
to determine, courts cannot examine such
question. Their interference can extend.
no farther thar the Jurisdiction OF the
County Beard, If the Board has confined
itself within its legitimate limits, Courts
cannot decide whether their action is: wise
or beneficial to the county OF. otherwise :
Ia examining section 2 Of chapter l7S
OF the laws Of 1873, find that the COM
promise however made, is not to be valid
unless approved by a vote Of twe<tfird
of the county board OF Iowa county.
Some verbal criticisms may be made in re
ference to this section OF the law, riz, that
it only applies to the agreement made by
o committee of the board IF SO, there
was no such committee ever appointed by
the beSsd. Evidently the section applies.
to the action OF the county board; w4!eth-
CT it acted through committee or not.
The constitution requires that there
shall be but one system of county govern
ment in this State. aud that this shall be
as nearly uniform as possible. In the case
Of the State VS.. Dousman, 28th Wis. Re-
ports GAL, the supreme court has decided
that chapter 397 Of the LOCAL laws Of 1859,
which requires vote of two>thirds Of the
county board of Milwaukee to validate
certain proc ceilings, was void, the gener>
al and uniform law comforting the power
Of county boards on bare majorities:r - +
1t would be an anomalous proceeding,
violating the rule of uniformity to enforce
upon the county board of a particular
county, or on given question, entire un>
animity. or a concurrence Of any less or
more than majority TO express the will
of the county board. This is not an effort
to mould the general powers Of the county
board to meet particular exigencies. 1t
is revolutionary as regards the rule of
uniformity which enable maJori:ies to exz.
press the will Of the county board. The