The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1901-04-02
eco o. ). 424-b)


or existed here.
There is a moral and equitable OBJ
legation on the part of Stark county
to make payment to Watson for the
bridge in question.
In what is Fnown as "The Armory
Bond Case," from Cuyahoea county, tie
circuit court of the United States, at
Cincinnati, in en- opinion by Judge
Severns, concurred in by Mr.. Justice
Harlan and Judge Thompson, January
8, 1901, say, among other things:
Both the parties to the borrowing
and the lending supposed the law valid
and intended making valid contract.
The question Is one of morals; no suf-
ficient grounds exist In which negli-
gence in making the right deteymina-
tion of the validity of the law could
be charged upon the purchaser of the
bonds. The county received the full par
value Of the bonds, purchased the site,
erected the building and now holds
title to 1t and is in possession of the
property acquired by the borrowed
money. No tax payer appears to have
raised any objection until after the
transaction had been substantially ac-
complished."
In, principle, there are many elements
in this case akin to that.
In the case at bar, both parties to
the contract entered into II in good
faith, believing that the bridge could
be built within the estimate. BY the
mistake of the county surveyor, who
was the engineer, the estimate was
wrong. The parties to the contract
were not guilty of any negligence in
failing to discover the mistake. The
bridge has been accepted and the coun-
ty has received the full benefit Of Wat
sons labors. IL is in n.possession of the
property and using It for the public
convenience. No tax payer raised any
objection until the transaction had
been accomplished. In commenting,
editorially. on the decision above re-
ferred to, the Cleveland Leader. under
date of January 8, 1901, headed is
article, "The County Must Be Honest"
and then proceeded to say, 1.-THE de-
cision is on the side Of right and hon
esty; the bond holders will get their
money and that is right. Whether the
bonds were valid or not, the county
got the money that was paid for them,
thus incurring an Indebtedness for
which 1t Is morally as well as legally
responsible. 1t Is satisfaction to
know that Cuyahoga county is not to
be placed in the position Of repudiator
of honest obligations" To the same
effect the other great daily Of that
city, The Plain Dealer, spoke. True,
these editorials are not authority on
questions of law; but on questions of
morals and what is just and equitatly
right their position is sound.
What would be thought of a business
man who gained possession of money
or property of another upon consider
alton which wholly failed, and who
refused to make restitution or compen-
sation? Or of o business corporation
which, under similar circumstances ac-
quired property, refused to return or
account for the value of that which
it had received? They would each be
universally regarded as wanting that
degreeeof business honesty necessary
to respectable stan ling in the
business, world. The duty to
received and for which no equivalent
compensate for money or property
has been given rests as well upon the
county as upon an individual or a c)r-
poration, as 1t Is we'll said in the brief
of able counsel in that case, "thc coun-
ty commissioners in such transactions
are but the business agents of the peo-
pie of the county and the obligations
of universal law, of uprightness and fair
dealing are as well applicable to their
transactions as to those of individuals
of the community whom they repre-
sent" But it may be urged that tho
rule of law in federal courts and in
state courts may be different; granted
for the sake of argument. but the rule
of equity is the same, and we are here
claiming equitable relief on the ground
of mutual mistake Of fact for which we
are in no way responsible.
In Marsh vs. Fulton, 10 Wall, 6S4,
the court, having denied the right to
recover upon void bond and the right
of ratification when there was no au-
thority for the original act used this
language, however, 1--WE do not mean
to intimate that liabilities may not
be incurred by counties Independent of
the statute. Undoubtedly they may he.
The obligation to do justice rests upon
all persons, natural and artificial, and
il the county obtains money or property
of others without compensation, the
law, independent of any statute will
compel restitution or compensation.
To the same effect is the opinion of
Judge Spear in King VS.. King, executor,
ct al, Ohio Legal News, February Is,
1901, page S72 and 373.
Decisions are abundant in support
of the position that even when the acts
of the parties have been in violation
of law, the contract may. under some
circumstances be enforced. A case in
point is Lester VS.. The Bank, SO Md.
658. The bank charter forbade a di-
rector, under penalty OF fine and i'm
prisonment, to borrow money from the
bank. It was claimed that the act of
thus lending by the bank was null and
void; that no rights could accrue from
1t and hence no action could be had by
| oj bar M rtv ha cad unOu ~ Tho oonrt