Dodgeville chronicle. [volume] (Dodgeville, Wis.) 1862-current, 1873-08-25

0Accpt Sucn as Is expressly COuleE-
red by law, and as this is the only
law in force which confers any pow
er to compromise, the board must
look to this law alone for its author
ity. This law confers upon the
board full power and authority to
compromise, but it limits them in
its exercise to the mode prescribed
by the act, and if the board resorts
to a mode not prescribed by the
law, its action is as unauthorized
and nugatory, as it would be if the
law had not given them any power
whatever.
The mode and the only mode pre-
scribed in the act, by which the
board is authorized to compromise,
Is by the agency of a committee Of
three members Of the board, who
are to act under the direction of the
board. 1t is true that the appoint
ment Of the committee is left to the
discretion of the board. 1t may or
may not appoint the committee, as
its discretion shall dictate. Or it
''may abolish said committee alto
gether." The only effect of the
neglect to appoint, or the abolish
ment Of the committee would be,
that there could be no compromise.
The law does not provide for an al
Tentative mode by which the board
may compromise "upon such terms
and conditions as to them may seem
most advantageous and beneficial to
said county" because that power is
immediately followed by the limita-
ton that the compromise must be
''as hereinafter proUaded."
1t is hardly necessary to say that
the agreement for the compromise,
was not made by a committee. No
committee was ever appointed. The
agreement was made by gentle
man acting as the attorney of the
county. But even the attorney had
no authority either in law or in fact.
The board never conferred any au-
thority upon him, and he had no
more power or authority to make
the agreement that I had, or any
other unauthorized person. He Of
fciously assumed to act without any
authority or request of the board.
He represented nobody and had no
power to represent anybody.
It may be said that it makes no diff
ference who makes the agreement,
so that it is approved by two-thirds
Of the board. It does make much
difference. It is to be presumed
that the Legislature had good rea-
sons for requiring that the compro-
mise should be made by a commit
tee Of the board under the direction
Of the board. One reason forces
itself upon us that it was pre-
sumed that committee of the board,
acting under its direction, would I'M
derstand better, and be better able
to represent the views Of the board
than any other person could be who
was not authorized by the board, to
act or to represent it's opinions or
wishes. Audno matter what were the
reasons for this requirement of the
Legislature, or whether there was
any good reason it is sufficient to
say that thus is it written in the
law, and the agency of such a COM
mittee in making any agreement Of
compromise, is an essential condi-
tion OF the grant of the power, and
that to make an agreement without
such agency is to make it without
authority Of law.
But conceding that the agency of
the attorney might be substituted for
that of a committee; the agreement
made by the attorney is open to the
objection that it does not, as the
law requires it should state "what
is agreed to be settled" It agrees
to compromise the "clai1ns Of the
said party of the first part, either
as owner, agent or attorney, or IN
any a0ay 7chateuer," without stating
the amount Of them; and also such
others as he may buy Or take in
further settlements with other
parties.
2D-THE AGREEMENT VIOLATES THE
LAW BY AUTHORIZING THE ISSUE
OF NEW BONDS, AND HOLDING THE
JUDGMENTS AS SECURITY FOR THEM
The Sd section of the act above
quoted provides that when the in
debtedness is in judgment, an agree
ment may be made with the holder
for the payment of a certain sum
into court in satisfaction of the
same, and in such case the creditor
may be permitted to hold the judy
ment as security. But by necessary
implication, when the agreement is
to give new bonds, in satisfaction of
the debt, the creditor is not to be per-
m'itted to hold the Judgment as a Sc
curity. The meaning of the section,
although somewhat blind, is I'M
doubtedly, that the security given
by the county on settlement may be
either one of two kinds-in the
alternative-either bonds, promis-
sorry notes, orders or drafts, "as may
be necessary to fulfil said agree
ment; or Tin the alternative it may
be a stipulation to pay certain
sum into court in satisfaction of the
Judgment; the creditor in such case
(but no other) ''being permitted to
hold the Judgment as security for
the fulilment Of the stipulations.
In other words, if the settlement is
made with new bonds, the Judgment
must be discharged, and the cred