Blackfoot news. (Blackfoot, Idaho) 1891-1902, 1899-11-11
Dce 0Akiso poWOGN CO.,
CHICAGO.

nothing To show that the board OF
county commissioners hal before them !
all the facts AT the time they approved |
OF the treasurers' report. TO warrant
the conclusion that they were knowingly
accepting these dividends and to put in
force the principle OF e-toppel IL must
be clearly shown that all the facts were
before the parties upon which the
estorpel Is based. Before party can
be esiopped, be must at the time Of
acting, have knowledge Of all the facts
upon which the es,oppel is based.
But even II the board Of county com
missioners had acted rightly and posi-
lively in this matter still their acts
would no, blind the county and would
not be void. They would hav. no right
or power under the law TO change the
status OF this fund from that OF trust
fund-thcy could not pass 1t into the
general assets OF the bank and forfeit
the counties right even II they had at
tempted 40 To do. The board of county
commissioners Is board OF limited
statutory powers. and any acts beyond
those authorized by statutes are void,
and would In no wise esiop the county
from repudistiug them. There is
broad distinction between the acts OF a
private individual and the acts OF
public officer with reference 10 the
question OF estoppel. Any act there
fore. upon the part of the board, not
authorized by law. would he absolutely
void.
Ada County vs.. Cess, ~ Pac. 1916.
In the cas-. referred Ia below 1t was
claimed that the city was cstopped by
reason Of the acts al the assessors and
, collectors Of the city. The court Ia
answer to this proposition said:
III the assessors and collectors we're
To he regarded In the light of mere
. private agents OF the city, there might
be some foundation for the defendant {
position, that the city Is estopped tc
deny the validity OF their acts, but they
are not to he so regarded. Though
:, elected by the city, they are public
: officers having their duties prescribed
by law for the general welfare and are
: guided by law in the exercise Of duties
:, Therefore, the city Is no, estopped Il
deny the validity OF their proceedings.
Rossire vs. City, SO Mass. 81.
=. al. L.f,,r I'm N n tOS.
AS to whether or not the city was bouns
;. by the act OF its officers, and the cour
:, In discussing the question says: "Th'
!, appellcnt cannot successfully build upo'
" the doctrine OF estoppcl. For this con
clu.ion there are ut least two satisfact
DRY reasons:
First, he deal, with public officer
y with limited, naked, statutory powers
' he was bound at his peril to ascertai
the scope Of their authority, and canno
find any claim upon acts done by thes
= officers Ia excess OF their statutor
" authority.
'e There il a well defined distinctio
l between public aud private corpors
"a tions, aud the general doctrines OF ca
t. TOPPED does not apply to the forme
20 class Of corporations.
Kissing VS.. City, 30 N. L. 1928.
" It is quite clear to my mind that tn
10 Board Of County Commissioners woul
'e not have the power TO change tn
" status OF this fund. either directly
20 Indirectly, by anything they Nigh
ds chance to do. No such authority
On given them by the statute and kno
Id Of no principle Of law which would sui
IN mort such view. In fact, the author
ne tiles seem conclnsively the other WA,
er story on Agency, See 307. :.
ny Mechen on Public Otiicers, See, "a
N. Lee VS.. Monroe, I Cranch 36S.
he But does the principle of es,oppcl a
Mt ply In this case at all, even II the cou
of ties had by proper authority aeceptt
Ilv these dividends, In what way does IN
he principle OF estoppel app,9 Clearly,
.. person cant he estopped from assertir
at a demand unless by his acts,o words, h
he now asserting the demand would wo'
to some wrong TO some person who, h
a. be,n induced to do something, or
il attain from, Going something. es reaS