The Ellensburg dawn. [volume] (Ellensburg, Wash.) 1898-1914, 1901-12-07
Judge Hanford's Decision.

In the Circuit court of the United
States, district of Washington, western
division
Frank M. Van Horn, plaintiff, VS..
kittitas County, Washington, defend
ant.
Filled, November, 1901. Opinion.
Action of law to recover damages for
breach OF contract on the part of Kit
tltas county, to issue and sell bonds to
the amount of $Sl 900 for funding the
county debt. Demurrer to complaint on
the ground that a condition in the
contract, requiring the purchasers to
cause suit to be brought against the
county and prosecuted to IL final deter
limitation in the supreme court of the
state for the purpose of testing the
validity of the proposed bonds, was
contrary to public policy, and made the
contract void. Demurrer sustained.
STILES & NASH,
Atty's for Plaintiff.
MIRES g. WARNER,
Atty's for Defendant.
HANFORD, District Judge-A statute
of this state authorizes any county to
issue bonds to limited amount for the
purpose of funding it's Indebtedness,
(see laws of WASH, 1SS9-1S00, p. 81
The complaint alleges as the plain
tiff's cause of action, that the board of
county commissioners of Kittitas
county, under authority conferred by
the statute referred to, ordered an is
sue of funding bonds to the amount of
$Sl, 900, and advertised for bids for the
proposed bonds; that the firm of Far
son, Leach & Co. were the highest bid
ders and their bid was accepted by the
board upon a condition, however, that
the bidders were to provide the printed
or Autographed blanks for the bonds,
and cause suit to be brought against
the county and prosecuted to final
determination in the supreme court of
the state, for the purpose of testing
the validity of the bonds, and that they
should be bound by the decision of the
supreme court, and that the expenses
to be incurred in providing the printed
or litographed blanks and the cost of
the proposed litigation, should not ex-
coed in the aggregate $500, which was to
be paid by the county: that the bidders
assented to said condition and there
after did provide the blanks and did
cause lawsuit to be instituted against
the county treasurer of Kittitas county,
and prosecuted to a final determination
in the supreme court of the state, for
the purpose of testing the validity OF
said bonds. See Williams VS.. Shoudy.
county treasurer, Al Pac. Rep. 1863; II
Wash. 262: that thereafter the county
refused to deliver the bonds to the bid
ders, and in violation of it's agreement,
receiving therefore a higher premium
than had been offered by FarsOn,
Leach g. Co., who thereby suffered
loss of the expenses and costs which
they had incurred, amounting to $500,
and of the profits which they would
have made on the transaction, amount
ing to $4,000, and that Farson, Leach
& Co., having a claim against the
comfy for damages 10 the amount of
Sc, 900, as above stated, assigned said
claim to the plaintiff. 1t is not shown
that, at the time of advertising the
bonds for sale, there was any dispute as
to the right of the county commission
ers to issue the bonds, nor as the legal
ity of the sale of the bonds to Farson,
Leach & Co. for the amount OF their
bid. and it must be inferred from what
is shown by the complaint, that the
plaintiff in the case OF Williams VS..
Shoudy, was instigated to commence
the action for the accommodation of Far
son. Leach g. Co. and the board of
county commissioners, and that all
partics concerned were interested in
obtaining decision affirming the
legality of the bonds.
From the alleSatioHS vi VIC Coin-
plant, and the necessary differences to
be drawn therefrom, the contract sued
upon contained condition precedent,
that is to say, the county was not obi
gated to issue its bonds unless Farson,
T Leach e. Co. should first be instrument
al in causing litigation and securing
decision of the supreme court OF the
Continued on page A.
r.<orv,I Counnf ho Cured