Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-05-29
C0OAT DECISIONS.
DlGES,lD BY W. B. MARTIN.
EXCLUSIVELY FOR
VIRcINIAN-P PILOT.
Notes Of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are of Interest 10
Our People.
sNIPEs v. CITY OF WINSTON.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
April II, 1900.


Supreme Court of North Carolina.
April II, 1900.
A CONTRACT BY ONE OF THE AL
DERMDN OF A CITY TO SUPER.
INTEND IT'S STREETS FOR $50 a
MONTH FOR SIX MONTHS. IS
VOID, AS CONTRARY TO PUBLIC
POLICY.
The board Of aldermen of the city of
Winston on March l, 1885, elected the
plaintiff street boss" and contracted
to pay him $50 per month for six
months. His duties were to superin-
tend. construct and repair the streets.
and to keep in order the sewerage sys-
tenn of the city. AT the time of said
election and contract the plaintiff was
member of the board Of aldermen and
participated in the meeting at which he
was elected. ~ new board was elected.
and indicted into office on May l, 1898,
when the plaintiff was discharged, and
paid for the services then rendered. He
now sues for the balance specified in
the contract for the next succeeding
four months
From judgment for defendant plain
tiff appealed.
The court says:
The board of aldermen, of which the
PlaintiT was member, was the agent
or the city. and its duty was absolute
loyalty to the best interests of its prn-
ciIal The plaintiff was Interested in
obtaining the best possible contract
from himself and his associates on the
BOARD. There was, then. antagonism
between his duty to the city aud his
personal individual interest in making
said contract. II is against public poll
cy to permit such contracts to be en-
forced. 1t would be unsafe for the
plaitiff. acting as employer, to become
hlmself, by the same bargain, an en-
ploye Smith V. City of Albany. G1 ".
Y. 4i4. is n case in point. The plaintiff,
being member Of the common council.
contracted with the board to furnish
horses and carriages for the procession
celebrating July ith, which the council
had In charge. 1t was held that he
could not recover Story on Agency
(secton 210 well states the principal:
1T may be correctly said with refer
ence 10 CHRISTIAN morals that no man
can faithfully serve two masters whose
interests are in conflict. If, then. the
seller were permitted as the agent of
another. to become the purchaser, his
duty to his principal and his own inter-
est would stand in direct opposition to
each other; and thus Il temptation-pcr-
maps In many cases too strong for re-
SiSt"Htc ny men OF lCcDlc morals
hackncycd in the common devices OF
worldly would be held out
which would betray them into gross
misconduct, and even into crime 1t is
To interpose preventive check against
such temptations and seductlons that Il
positive prohibition has been found to
be the soundest policy, encouraged by
the purcst principles of Christianity.
This doctrine is we'll settled Mt law.
And 1t Is by no means necessary in
cases of this sort that the agent should
make any advantage by the bargain.
Whether he has or not. the bargain is
without any obligation to bind the prin-
cipal." This principle cannot be ques-
toned. and experience has shown ite;
wisdom. Common reasoning declares
this principle to be sound and the pub
lie is entitled to have it strictly cnforc-
ell against every public Official. In
obedience TO this reasoning. and upon
these authorities. we hold that the con-
tract under consideration is void and
uncnforccablc.
Affirmed.