The Bemidji pioneer., 1900-08-09

ed to or for the benefit of that
county. Nor do the orders pur-
port on their face to be its obli-
cations for they were made pay
able outiof a particular fund, that
is from any money in the treasury
Of Beltrami county not otherwise
appropriated. There is no allega-
tion in the complaint that there
are now any funds in the treasury
of Becker county belonging to
Beltrami county or that the form.
er county has or ought to have
any funds applicable to the paw
ment Of the orders, or that Becker
county was in any manner negli-
gent in failing to provide such
funds by tax levy on the taxab le
property in Beltrami county.
Conceding that Becker county is
liable for the payment OF orders is
sued by its auditor payable out of
funds belonging to Beltrami coanty to
the extent of money received by it from
the ten mills per acre tax it was au-
thorized to levy to meet the expenses
OF the organized county of Beltrami,
yet there is not a suggestion in the
complaint that the officers Of Becker
county have not fully and leg ally dis
.bursed every dollar received from
such source. In the abse nee of any
suggestion or allegation in the COM
plant to the contrary they are pre-
sumed to have done so. The allega-
tions of the complaint as to~ what the
plaintiff does not know and cannot
find out about such taxes and their
disbursement add nothing to the legal
effect of the complaint for such allega
tions fall far short Of stating facts
sufficient to require an accounting as
to the amount of money received by
Becker county from such taxes and
the dispo osition thereof. The COM
plant does not even allege that the
plaintiff has ever requested any state
ment from the officers of Becker county
as to the amount OF money received
from such source and how it was dis
bursed, or that the plaintiff has done
anything to inform itself in the prem
ises or that it has any reason to be-
lieve, or does believe that Becker
county has or ought to have any money
equitably applicable to the payment OF
the orders held by the plaintiff. Coun-
sci claims that Becker county is liable
for the payment of the orders because
by it's officers it represented itself to be
the agent of Beltrami county and 'au-
thorlzed to issue orders on its behalf.
The rule that one who acts as agent
for another without authority, makes
himself personally liable has no APP
plication to this case for when public
officers or agents in good faith con-
tract with parties having equal means
Of knowledge with themselves. they do
not become personally liable although
they may have exceeded their author
ity.
The laws OF the state showed exactly
the relation of Becker county and its 1
officers to Beltrami county, and every
one purchasing the orders issued by
the officers of the former was charged
with notice of the extent Of their au-
thority. Other than as we have indi-
Gated counsel for plaintiff has sug-
gested no reason why the complaint |
States cause Of action against either
of the defendan He seems to as |
sumo that the plaintiff must necessar-
lily be entitled to some remedy, and
that having stated the facts the court |
must apply the remedy. The trouble, |
however, Is that the complaint does
not state facts emitting the plaintiff |
to any remedy. If it's allegations are
true ethically the plaintiff ought to re-
ceive payment of the orders from. Bel
trami county for whose benefit the |
services, for which they we're issued,
were rendered. But the only means |
provided by law for their payment was
out of fund provided by a tax to be |
levied by Becker county on the tax
able property in Beltrami county not
to exceed in the aggregate for all pnr-
poses one cent a year on each acre OF
taxable land in the county. The or
ders were made payable out of this |
fund. Now it would seem that the tax
was inadequate to meet the legitimate
demands of the fund, hence there was
a deficit. The legislature provided for
the organization of all unorganized !
counties including Beltrami without
making any provision for the pay
ment Of such deficit by continuing the |
tax until the fund was sufficient to
meet the outstanding orders, or in
some other practical way. What the
remedy of the plaintiff in the premises
is, if any it has, we do not assume to
decide. We simply hold that the facts
alleged in the complaint do not state a
cause of action against either defend |
ant. Orders affirmed.
- START, C. J.