Great Falls weekly tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1894-1???, 1895-06-28

There is now a question at issue be-
tween the owners of the Park island
property and the city of Great Falls.
The proposition is a simple one. The
city purchased the property and was
given d deed for it, and in return issued
a warrant which is alleged to be absolute
ly worthless. The owners now ask that
tine island be given back TO them or they
be paid the price agreed upon. This
seems fair and equitable. The city at
torney has advised the council to stand
pat, to hold on to the park and let the
sellers whistle for their money or 60 to
law and get it, if they can. The attorney
does not appear to be willing to assume
any responsibility, for he will not take
either horn of the dilemma. 1t is an
easy matter for an official to hide be-
hind the bench of the judiciary, but it is
another thing to involve either the tax
payers Or the opposition in the expense of
a litigation. A recent decision of the
supreme court of Montana should have
given the city attorney sufficient courage
to have expressed a decided opinion and
one that would have settled the contro-
versy. The decision referred to was in
the school bond case and the predicate
for it was an opinion by Chief Justice
Field of the supreme court Of Cali
%fornia, which was quoted by Chief JUS
tice Pemberton, who said:
In Pimetal VS.. City of San Francisco
the city had received money from the
| unauthorized sale of lands, and refused
to refund the same. In speaking of the
right Of the purchaser to recover money
paid for said lands at said void sales, Mr..
Chief Justice Fields says:
This alleged want of privity, as we
understand it, amounts to this: that in
asmuch as the mayor and land commit
tee had 40 authority to make the sale,
they had nc authority to pay the money
which they received from the bidders
into the treasury of the city, and there
fore no obligation can be fastened from
such unauthorized act upon the city
The position thus restricted in its state.
ment is undoubtedly correct, but the
facts of the case 60 beyond this state
ment. They show an appropriation Of
the proceeds and the liability of the city
arises from the use of the moneys or the
refusal to refund them after their re.
ceipt. The city is not exempted from
the common obligation to do justice
which binds Individuals. Such obliga
ton rests upon all persons, whether
natural or artificial. If the city Obtain
the money of another by mistake o.
without authority Of law it is her dut!
to refund it from this general obligation
II she obtain other property, which doe
not belong to her, it is her duty to re
store it, or, if used. to render an equiva
lent therefor from the like obligation
The legal liability springs from the mora
obligation to make restitution, and W
do not appreciate the morality which de
MES in such cases any rights to the ind
vidual whose money or other propert
has been thus appropriated. The la,
c~ountenances no such wretched ethics
its command always is to do justice"
This opinion is worth the considers
ton of the city attorney. He may nc
have seen it, but when he does and al
preciates that it has been adopted E
law by the supreme court of this stat
+ he may change his mind and advise tt
Z. "codncil to avoid the threatened litigi
ton. Going to law is a bad business f,
V eitber,corporations or individuals and
I is the duty Of the corporation attornt
to advise the council to be honest ar
either return the goods or pay for thel