, 1891-04-19

tracts by public officers. Suppose Mr..
Hoyt charged for drugs and other sup
plies a dozen times their value. When
he presents his bill to the board he has to
vote upon his allowance-he has a vote
then upon the allowance of a most exorbl.
tant bill. What can be palmer than that the
law is intended to prevent Just such
fraudulent and corrupt practices. That
he does not charge such exorbitant prices
has nothing whatever to do with the case,
for in the Language of a learned Judge in
a California case. The question of the
validity of a contract Of a public officer
does not depend upon the circumstance
whether it can be shown that the public
has in fact suffered any detrment. but
whether the contract Is such in its ma
ture as might have been Injurious to the
publicinterest."
But admitting, for the sake ~Ofargument,
that the bill does not cover the case in
question, 1t can still be claimed with reason
that any bill presented by Mr.. Hoyt to the
county is illegal, aud that any contract
existing between him and the county of
Laramie is null and void.
1t is Fundamental in the law of contracts
that a man cannot make a contract with
himself; and the soundest reason can be
given for the rule. As a druggist, 1t is
Mr.. Hoyt's interest, as well as bis duty,
to get the highest possible price for his
goods, As a member OF the board of
county commissioners, it Is his duty, if
not his interest, to get goods at the lowest
possible price. His duty as a druggist,
and his duty as an agent of the county,
are incompatible; and right here the com
mon law steps in and says that Mr.. Hoyt
must be either a county commissioner or
a druggist; that he cannot be both. Ii
says that, while Mr.. Hoyt may he honest,
and may deal fairly with the county, 1t is
against public policy to permit him to be
tempted.
This principle OF the common law has
been carried much further than cases like
the u at present under consideration.
Thus, in Brown VS.. Lindsay, a Canadian
case, an action at law on a contract for the
sale of goods by a trading partnership of
which a member is also a member of the
municipal council, may be resisted on the
ground that one OF the plaintiffs is a mem
Der of the municipal council.
A perusal OF the case OF Smith vs.
Albany, 81 N. Y. 44t. decided in 1875,
shows it to be directly in point. There
the New York court of appeals regarded
an act Of the legislature, similar to the
Wyoming statute, making it unlawful
for a member of the common council to
become a contractor under any contract
authorized by the council, and declaring
such contract TO be void at the instance
of the city, as but declaratory of the com
mon law, which, on grounds of public
policy, prohibits a trustee from contract
ing with himself Accordingly, where the
plaintiff. a member of the council, voted
for a resolution to appropriate money to
celebrate the Fourth OF July, under which
resolution a committee Of the members
employed the plaintiff to furnish horses
and carriages for the celebration. 1t was
held assuming the appropriation of
money for this purpose to be valid under
the charter that the plaintiffs employ
ment was against public policy and void,
and that he could not recover for the fair
value of the use Of the horses and carriages
furnished by him.
From the above, it is quite evident that
the Hoyt case is plain as a matter of law.
A fair construction OF the law will bring
Mr.. Hoyt within its terms, and even il it
did not, the principles OF the common law
would apply, and the contract would be
declared null and void.