The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1897-05-30


why they should not be restrained
from issuing such bonds. The case
was submitted on briefs and taker
under advisement by the court
The brief submitted by County At
torney Waldemar Van Colt, Graham
f. Putnam and Ray Van Colt on behalf
of the county commissioners is as fol-
lows:
DEFENDANTS BRIEF.
1t is contended that the $50, SIS. 80 can
not be bonded because, it is contended
it is a debt OF 1896.
This Indebtedness was created before
statehood, and the case of Fenton VS..
Blair clearly shows this. The first state
legislature Claws of 1896, p. 1889 val
idated this excess indebtedness and
recognized thar value received had
been given. II is principle of law
that a ratification relates back to the
inception of the act or transaction
this amount became an Indebtedness
previous TO statehood, and the laws of
1896 (page 52D provide for the bonding
of such Indebtedness.
The opinion in the Pleasant Valley
Coal company case, in which it is
stated that this sum became a debt
when the act took effect, is true, be-
cause. the debt being void, there could
be no debt until validated, and there
was no valuation until the act took
effect; but when it was once validated
it related back to the inception of the
transaction.
1t is also contended that floating
does not include the $780,,
900 because floating Indebtedness"
means a valid debt. AS matter of
fact, this $4,000 was a valid debt when
the act of 1897 was passed, because it
had previously been validated
1t is contended that the S37, 1897, 80
cannot be bonded because a part of
the same was paid off with 1895 reve-
nue..
The act of 1897 page s3) was spec
tally designed TO cover just such a case
as this, and section , of such act
recognizes that bonds may be issued.
Express power to borrow money au-
thoriZes the issuance of bonds for the
purpose of raising such money.
Q5 Ency. of law, page 1856.
1t is respectfully submitted that the
judgment should be that the defendant
may issue bonds for $4,000.
PETITIONERS BRIEF.
The petitioners brief, submitted by
Attorney D. C. Eichnor, is as follows:
The defendants in this case have filed
| demurrer TO the affidavit for writ
If prohibition upon the ground that
he affidavit does not state facts suf-
icient TO constitute a cause of action.
Defendants contend that they have
he power to issue bonds under the
let passed in 1897 page 33). entitled
An act permitting counties to fund
ioating Indebtedness existing at the
ime of statehood" also that the $780,
6S.32, which was declared invalid, or
Il excess of the debt limit in the case
# enton VS.. Blair. II Utah. page IS,
s covered by this act. Plaintiff con-
ends that the $S9, 56S. 32 was an invalid
ebt at the time of statehood; that
he act to fund floating Indebtedness
annOt include this amount, for the
eason that the term floating indebt- !
dness" means existing, lawful and |
aid claims against the county. The
curt of appeals of the state of New /
,ork has defined the term floating
ebt" in this language:
BY the term floating debt is meant 1
hat mass of lawful and valid claims /
gainst the corporation, for the pay
lent of which there is no money in |
he corporate treasury specifically /
esignated, nor any taxation or other .
leans of providing money to pay,
provided"
See people VS.. Wood, II n. Y. CT.
up. Rep. page 374.
1t is further urged on the part of
le plaintiff that the supreme court
f this state, on April &c, 1897, in the
ase of the Pleasant Valley Coal COM
any VS.. the board of county commits
toner's of Salt Lake county. uses the
blowing language:
'' Likewise, when illegal warrants are
lade lawful by legislative enactment,
lere is no debt until the law takes
feet
An act entitled AN act validating
.cess Indebtedness" Q7S-9 laws of
,96) went into effect June 5. 1886
therefore,, the amount of $685. 81,
hich was declared illegal in the case
, Fenton VS.. Blair was not a float
g Indebtedness against the county of
alt Lake at the time Utah was ad-
tilted as a state, because it was an
valid debt at that time and only be-
me a valid debt June s. 1896.
1t is insisted that the doctrine of
-incipal and agent is applicable in
is case-that the Legislature ratified
e illegal acts of the county COM
issioners which incurred the amount
excess of the debt limit referred to /
the case of Fenton VS.. Blair: in
her words, that that sum became
bit June 5, 1896, yet, by some strange
asoning, it relates back to the time
the inception. The sum in question !
came a debt against Salt Lake
unity, and, according to Secs. 3 and
article IA of the constitution. should .
we been paid out of the revenues of
36.
The second point raised by the
aintiff is a self-evident propositions;
at the county cannot take the reve- |
les of one year and pay off indebted
IS of a preceding year and then 7
nd the county for the year from I
lich they took the revenue to an
Y in liquidation of the debt. The
oper remedy as to the $37, 80 men
med in the third paragraph of =
aintiff's complaint should not have c
en- paid off with part of the revenue
1896. !
I is respectfully submitted that the !
igment should be that the defendant +
restrained from issuing bonds in
; sum of $4,000, or any sum what
er. C
Excursion to California '
One Fare. c
Southern Pacific Company. =