The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1898-10-14

unnI III 1874, and which was leSallzed
by a subsequent act of the legislature.
The court reverses the lower tribunal
and decides that warrants in contro-
versy issued for labor on public works
must be paid with per cent interest
from date of registration, while war
rants issued for any other purpose only
draw 3 per cent interest from the date
when the valuation act took effect
June ;, 1896.
The case was that of Ellsworth Dag
gett VS.. Stephen II. Lynch, treasurer
OF Salt Lake county. DaSgett IS the
holder OF a large number Of warrants
which were issued in excess of the debt
limit. therefore void, but were SubSe-
quently validated by law. The war
rants were presented for payment and
the treasurer offered to pay the princi-
pal, with interest at the rate of per
cent only from June 5, 1896, the date
upon which the valuation act took eff
feet, This was refused and suit was
brought on two warrants, one for IS,
issued Dec. TO- 1894, for the benefit of
paupers and insane persons, and the
other on Dec. II, 1894, for S26 in pay
ment for road work. Daggett contended
for interest on both at the rate of S
per cent from the date on which they
We're presented to the treasurer for
payment and registered. In speaking of
This act validated such warrants only
so far as they were void in conse-
quence of having been contracted in eX-
cess of the debt limit. The proviSo is
that the county or any taxpayer is not
prohibited from defending against any
such warrant upon any other ground
than that the debt was contracted or
that the warrant was issued in eX-
cess of the debt limit"
The warrant bearing date of Dec II
1894, was issued to pay for labor on
the road in pursuance of a legis-
latiVe act authorizing the same to be
issued and providing an interest rate
of s per cent, the warrants to be re-
deemable within two years. So much
of the warrants as provided for the
payment of interest was not void, the
court says, because there was no law
authorizing such a provision. The
promise TO pay the interest was void
for the same reason that the promise
TO pay principal was-Solely because
the warrant had been issued in excess
of the debt limit and so far as the
act of March Is validated it. An act
of a county void for want of authority
may be validated by the legislature if
it had the power before the void act
was done to authorize it.
PAUPER WARRANT DIFFERENT.
but a different question is raised.
says the court, upon the other war
rant, bearing date of Dec. 10. 1894, so
far as il provides for the payment of
interest. This warrant was issued upon
Indebtedness incurred for the care and
support Of pauperS and insane persons,
and there was no statute of the terri
tory authorizing the county to pay in
terest on such Indebtedness, or to issue
warrants therefor drawing interest.
IF the warrant was void because 1t
was issued in excess of the debt limit
and so much of it as provided for the
payment of interest was also void be-
cause it was issued authorizing a con-
tract to pay interest, the act of March
%, 1896, validated it so far as it was
void because it exceeded the debt limit,
but not so far as ii was void because
it provided for the payment of interest
without authority Of law. In that case
it was validated as to the principal, but
not as to interest. This brings Us to
the question, was the county author
lied to pay interest on such indebted
ness as this without a statute author
izing it, or to issue warrants upon such
drawing interest.
Public corporations, like private
ones, can only exercise such powers as
are expressly conferred, and such as
are necessary to their exercise, and
no territorial law prior to statehood ex-
pressly authorizing the county court to
pay interest on county Indebtedness if
the class for which the warrant of Dec.
10 was issued, or to issue warrants
therefor drawing interest"
LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY.
After discussing the matter at some
length the court continues:
Experience and observation in the
past discloses the evils and dangers of
county boards with the
general power to issue interest bear
ing warrants. Some of the counties
and cities Of the late territory have
been greatly embarrassed and injured
by the exercise of such power. Such
discretion holds out the temptation to !
create needless debts and make eX-
expenditures and affords OPP I;
and facilities for fraud. In |
view of such considerations we are dis |
posed to assume that the territorial !
legislature Intentionally refused to |
confer such power on the counties. For |
such reason we hold that the county |
court of Salt Lake county was not |
authorized 10 issue warrants bearing |
rIerest without express legislative |
power to do so. While this question |
has not been before this court or the /
supreme court of the late territory it I
IF other states, and we must admit |
there is an irreconcilable conflict in |
those decisions; but in the light of eX-
Oerence and observation and in view
Of the welfare of the people of the
various counties and of the reasons
stated %e are disposed to follow those
authorities which hold that counties
nave no authority TO incur indebtedness
bearing interest, or to issue interest
bearing warrants without express
legislative authority"
The court then sums up the law and
decides that in view of the fact that the
county court had no authority to issue
ntereSt-bearing warrants for any
specially provided for, interest on such
is only to be paid at the rate
If per cent from June 5, 1896, on
which date the valuation act went
nto effect.
With relation to warrants of this
lass issued for road work the court
Iecides that inasmuch as there was
special legislative provision for in
crest at the rate of per cent, this
interest is payable from the date on
which the warrants were registered.
The lower court held that all war
ants draw interest at the rate of s. per
ent from date Of registration
Short Orders.
The following orders were entered by
Judge Cherry yesterday:
Z