Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1900-01-20
Judge HiIes Hands Down Opinions
In a Number Of important Cases.
AUERBACH RECEIVERS s14,7OO
With Interest From 1895 - County
Counter Claim Dismissed 90 Farms
worth Wins suit-A sad Plight

Judge Hlles today handed down de-
cisIons In number Of cases the most
important Of which were Samuel Auer-
bach VS. Salt Lake City, Daniel Har-
rington vs. p. T. Farnsworth and Mary
Ferguson vs Isaac Ferguson. In the
first named action judgment was given
for plaintiff and In the other two suits
the defendants came out winners.
In the case Of Samuel Auerbach, sur
ylylng partner Of Auerbach Bros.
against Salt Lake county. Judge
Hlles gave Judgment for the plaintiff for
si4,7OO, with legal interest from Febru-
AIRY Is, 1895.
Plaintiff sued to recover $4,000 and
legal interest on warrant ISSUED by he
county In June. 1894, In favor Of A. II.
Andrews e. Company, the Chicago fur
niture dealers on the day the warrant
was issued Andrews Co. assigned 1t to
+. Auerbaeh g. Bro. for Si4,IOO.
On the 3lst Of June. 1894, the warrant
was presented to the county treasurer
for payment, but was not paid for want
Of funds, and the fact Of non-payment
for that cause was endorsed on the back
Of the warrant.
Some time afterwards, when Andrews
a Company had delivered and set up
the furniture and fittings on the coun-
TVS side Of the joint building, the coun-
~ repudlated the Andrews warrant and
refused to pay It, Its non-liabllity was
based on two grounds, viz:
First, that the county court which
passed the order authorizing the issu-
ance Of the warrant consisted Of three
selectment and a probate judge; that
the former took 1t upon themselves 10
pass the resolution for the purchase Of
the furniture without consulting the
member OF the court; that Andrews
bill amounted to S4973.S5, when the
goods were not worth more than $4,000;
that a secret agreement was made be-
tween Andrews a Co. and the selectmen
whereby the latter were to receive
twenty-five per cent OF the fraudulent
price and that for these reasons the
warrant sued on, as well as others in
like case, was void In law.
Second, that the warrant was void
because II was issued TO Andrews &
Co. before the goods had been delivered,
and that no ltcmlzed statement of the
goods delivered and verified claim was
presented 10 the court for allowance
as required by statute.
BY reason Of the alleged fraudulent
contracts between Andrews a. Co. and
the three selsctmen the county set up
counter claim OF $4,000 and Insisted
that any judgment that should be
entered on the warrant sued on, should
be scaled down SO that II should bring
In judgment such proportion only Of It's
face value as $4,000 would bear to
Sb4,SI0.S5, the total amount OF the sew
eral warrants issued on the furniture
deal. on these two defenses the court
says.
THE COURTS DECISION.
In respect 10 the first defense,
find from the evidence that the con-
tracts Of March 8, 1894, and that OF
May Z. 1894, were made by the select
men Individually without any order
or authority from the county court,
or other legal authority, and there
| fore any warrants issued or delivered
| 10 satisfy such contracts are void.
That even II these selectmen had had
authority TO make these contracts, the
evidence shows, that some OF them,
at least. bargained corruptly with An
| drews a Co TO take a bride In con-
slderation Of the making Of those con-
tracts TO Andrews & Co., and there
| fore, on that account any warrant is
sued or delivered to pay for furniture
on such contracts are necessarily void
The evidence shows that the con-
tract OF June 10. 1894, is In one sense
an independent agreemmert between
the county court on the one part, and
Andrews & Co on the other. for the
delivery Of $4,000 worth Of furniture,
under certain conditions named in the
bond. The buying OF the furniture
for the use Of the building, was an act
quite within the authority OF the
county court.
! In the transaction Of June 18th, the
court was acting In It's capacity as
| such in the ordinary way. Whilst
this Is so. / stlll cannot in the light
| OF all the evidence come to any other
| judgment, than that the action OF
some OF the members Of the county
court on that occasion. was infected
with the unauthorized and corrupt bar
gaining with Andrews & Co. which are
evidenced by the transactions OF March
6. and May Z. 1894 II seems TO me,
| that those bad acts were In great part,
the motive and inducement which led
such members Of the court to vote to
| pass the order Of June 10. 1894. and
| therefore, that order for the issuance
and delivery OF this warrant. having
| thus had as Its motive and intent the
| furtherance Of those unauthorized and
corroupt schemes, the warrant Is void,
and should be dlsregarded and an
/ nulled Moreover, the admissions OF
| the parties upon the record, and the
| evidence shows that Il was issued and
| delivered when no goods had been de-
| llvered, when no claim against the
| county had been presented TO the court
| itemzed and verified as the statute
/ required The statute expressly pro-
| vlded. that the court must not allow
any claim against any county or dis
| trict fund without such itemized and
verified claim being first presented In
| the ordinary way. A statute such as
that must be strictly observed and
| pursued before warrant can be is
| sued. The courts OF the country have
always strictly enforced such statutes.
No laxlty should be permitted In the
observance OF them.
| Any relaxation OF ODedlence IL sure
10 lead 10 carelessness or corrupt
abuses In the administration OF the
fiscal affairs OF the county. There
| fore on that ground decide that the
warrant sued on Is void.
"Inasmuch as the warrant sued on.
as well as the other warrants men
toned In the counter claim Of defend
ant are void. nothing can be asserted
OF them by holders OF them against the
county. therefore. II would seem 10
follow that no claim for damages can
be asserted by the county by way Of
counter claim against holder Of any
OF such warrants, for the simple rea-
son that the county can not be dam
aged by that which is void in fact and
In law and therefore the suit for dam
ages on the counter claim OF defend
ant should be dismissed.
THE question yet remains for de-
cision whether upon fair construction
OF the pleadlngs, and application OF the
evidence thereto, the plaintiff Il en-.
titled TO recover judgment upon a
| Quantum vaiebat for the amount paid