Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1900-01-20
WARRANTS PROPERLY REPUDI-
ATED.


"In January 1895, all the selectmen
who we're engaged IN the unlawful
transactions OF 1894 went out Of Of
tee and other persons took their places,
as members OF the county court. The
evidence shows that the new
board Of selectmen, on their ac-
cession to Office had reason to be-
lieye from the Information derived
from various sources that there was
fraud In the furniture contract between
the former selectmen and Andrews &
Co., and thereuDon. they commenced an
investigation, with such results, that
as early as the middle OF February,
1895. they became convinced that the
contracts OF March and May Z. 1894,
werothe result OF the corrupt bargain be-
tween Andrews & Co. and the eelectmen
before mentioned, and they then deter
mined TO contest the payments of the
warrants as being void for fraud, but
also 10 retain possession Of the furni-
ture. In this state OF the case, / de-
eide az matter Of law. that Il was the
duty OF the county court, to repudlate
the warrants and return the furniture
TO Andrews & Co., or to pay, or offer 90
pay, Andrews * Co., or Auerbach e.
Brother, who were Andrews & Co. q
equitable assigneees, the actual value
OF the furniture II the county court
still elected to hold It. This the coun-
ty court did not do. but kept the fur
niture and waited TIL the 22nd of June,
1895, when. by a resolution entered on
its minutes that day, the county court
declared the warrant void, and directed
the county treasurer not TO pay 1t.
Under the admitted facts OF this
case. Andrews & Co. were entitled 20
have their furniture back. or $4,000 I'm
money. the actual value thereof, which
was and Is stlll In the hands OF Che
county. Louisiana VS. Wood, l02 y. S.
294. THE obligation TO do justice rests
upon all persons natural or artificial.
and II county obtains money or prop
erty OF others without authority. the
law Independent Of any statute. viii
compel restitution or compensation.
Marsh w Fulton. 10 Wall, &c.
The above is a dictum by the United
States Supreme court In that case, but
nevertheless Il IL sound law The Auer.
bach Brothers then stood, and the
plaintiff now stands. IN the position Of
one who has advanced 10 Andrews &
Co. sli, 700 Of the s27 000 purchase price
value Of the furniture and In the po-
sitlon Of an equitable assignee OF An
drews & Co. Of a claim against the
county for that sum. with legal interest
from the time when the county ought TO
have either returned the furniture, or
offered TO pay its actual market value.
which time find was the 18th day
OF February 1896 ! think Interest is
allowable from that time, because from
that time the obligation 10 pay what
the furniture was actually worth must
be deemed as llquldated demand. un.
der the evidence In this case.
AUERBACHs LEGAL POSITION.
Although II is not necessary to this
decision, II may be here noted 40
calculating the legal position of Mr..
Auerhach. In this relation 10 other war
rant holders, mentioned In the plead
ings that so far as this case goes 70
the point, the evidence shows that he
Is first In point OF time as the equitable
assignee OF Andrews & Co., and there.
fore must be first I'm right to have his
claim paid out OF the $4,000, which the
county owes Andrews & Co. by rea-
son OF having kept the furniture after
the discovery Of the fraud complained
Of
let findings and judgment be en-,
tered In favor Of plaintiff and agains,
defendant FOR Sli,70O. with legal interest
thereon from the 18th day Of February,
1895. and the costs Of this suit.
OGDEN HILES,
District Judge.
dated Salt Lake, Jan 10Th, 1906"