The Ellensburg dawn. [volume] (Ellensburg, Wash.) 1898-1914, 1901-12-07
Continued from page H.


state, affirming the validity OF the
bonds. The agreement therefor, was
not Invisible, and as the only obligation
of the county was made dependent up
on performance of the condition by
Farson, Leach & Co., the contract is en-
tirely void if performance of the cOndi-
ton was unlawful. The courts of this
state are not required by the constitu-
ton or laws of the state, to counsel or
advise the county commissioners in adj
vance as to the legality or wisdom OF
any contemplated action, and yet it has
become Il common practice for eastern
and foreign investors, negotiating for
the purchase OF county or municipal
bonds, to require proceedings intended
to forcstall any subsequent decision by
the courts of the state, of questions at
fccting the validity of the bonds. The
practice is from every point OF view
vicious. 1t involves in the first place
conspiracy to deceive the courts, by
presenting cases for decision involving
no real controversy, and as the parties
to all such fictitious litigation are
united i'm interest, the temptation must
be strong to array facts and conceal
fncts in such manner as to obtain de-
cision advantageous or profitable to the
conSpiratOrs, and at the same time fore
stall any fair consideration of questions
affecting the validity of the bonds
which real litigants may afterwards
choose to contrOvert in the courts
The practice of bringing feigned law
suits into court was condemned by the
supreme court of the United States in
the case of Lord VS.. Veazie, s Howard
25l-2j6, and in the opinion by Chief
Justice fancy, the court said:
at is the Office of courts of Justice to
decide the rights Of persons and of
property, when the persons interested
cannot adjust them by agreement be-
tween themselves-un to do this upon
the iuil hearing of both parties. And
any attempt, by a mere colorado dis
pute, to obtain the opinion of the court
upon question of law which party
desires to know for his own interest or
his own purpose, when there is no real
and substantial controversy between
those who appear as adverse parties to
the suit, is an abuse which courts of
justice have always reprshended, and
aI hah M NJ
court"
In an opipion by Chief Justice Green,
in the case of Connolly VS.. Cunningham,
Wash. Ty. 242, the supreme court of
Washington Territory denounced Il
similar agreement to the one pleaded
in this case. severally Us follows:
ANY deceit is entirely inconsistent
with that perfect directness and open
ness which should characterize parties
when they seek the intervention OF
their sovereign to adjust in court their
difficulties. Every agreement to prac-
tice such deceit is fraudulent against
public policy, and void"
Numerous other decisions uphOlding
the same doctrine, are collated in the
9th Vol. of Enc. OF III. e. Pr. p. 720.
For the reason above stated, consid-
the contract pleaded to be void, and on
that ground the demurrer will be sls-
tanned. The complaint is also defective
in its allegations of iurislictional facts,
in this, that the members of the firm
of Farson, Leach & Co. are alleged to
be each and all citizens of the United
States of America, and citizens of the
state of Illinois. or of the state of New