The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1897-07-31
DO NOT DRAW INTEREST
Opinion of the Count, Nt.oruev
Upon Illegal Warrants.
ARE NOT A DEBT UNTIL PASSED
UPON BY THE COURTS.
Text of the Judgment of the Lawyers
Associated With Mr.. Van Colt
Question Treated at Length In
All Its Points By the County's
Counsel.

Replying to a request the county at
torney's Office yesterday supplied the
following opinion to the county treas
urer:
Stephen H. Lynch. Esq. County
Treasurer:
Dear Strive are in receipt of your
favor of July 2s in which you ask two
questions. the first being as to whether
interest should be paid upon warrants
which we're included in the illegal is
sue prior to statehood and were legal
lied by the act of the legislature of
March %, 1885, from the date of their
registration or from the date of the
valuation by the act of the legislature.
il is held by the supreme court of the
state in the case of the Pleasant Valley
Coal company VS.. Board of County
Commissioners that interest on these
warrants from Jan. l 10 June 5, the
date when the law validating them took
effect, was not an indebtedness of the
county for the year 1896, and the court
in calculating what items could prop
er1y be charged as an indebtedness of
the county for that year, expressly ex-
cluded the interest on these warrants
for that period, although the same was
claimed on the argument of the case to
be such Indebtedness. There is nothing
in the opinion in the case of Darlxe VS..
Beard of County Commissioners which
in any way reverses this holding or in
dictates that the court intended to de-
part from it. No question of interest
was involved, mentioned or decided in
the latter case. 1t was simply held
with regard to these warrants that, as
the consideration for which they were
issued mad been received by the county
in 1894 and the implied promise TO pay
arose at that time, evidently it was the
intention of the legislature that these
warrants should be included in the in
debtedness for which permission to
bond was given by the act of 1896
We are therefore of the opinion that
no interest on these warrants should
be computed or allowed prior to June
5, 1896.
Your second question is as to whether
the money now in your hands derived
from the sale of bonds to pay certain
warrants which have been repudiated
for fraud by the county can be used
for tine purpose of meeting other in
debtednes5, and, if it may, what pro-
vision can be made for meeting these
reDudiated warrants, if they are here
after declared legal.
We are of the opinion that under the
decision of the supreme court in the
case of the Pleasant Valley Coal COM
pany VS.. the Board of County Commits
sioners, above cited, that these repudi-
ated warrants are not an indebtedness
until they are declared to be such by
the final judgment of the courts and
that the money in your hands, derived
from this sale of bonds, is properly ap-
plicable to the payment of other undis-
puted Indebtedness existing prior to
statehood and should be used by you
for that purpose, and that, under the
opinion of the court, when a final adj
Indication is reached upon these ex-
cluded warrants, the amount then as
certained to be due will become an in |
debtedness of the county for the year
in which the judgment is rendered, to /
be paid from the revenue of that year. |
The opinion in the case of Darke VS.. |
Board of County Commissioners is to |
the same effect upon this question. The |
court says: THE $4,000 appears to be |
4 valid indeb9 edness existing before |
statehood. The board may lawfully is
sue bonds to that amount. If any part |
IF it shall hereafter be found fraudu-
ent, that cannot invalidate the bonds |
purchased in good faith before. 1t
would simply require the board to re-
'use to pay such fraudulent indebted
ness and appropriate so much of the
proceeds of the bonds TO the payment
If legitimate Indebtedness of the
county"