The Hartford republican. (Hartford, Ky.) 18??-1926, 1910-08-05
SWEEPING
victory.
Ohio County Wins in U. S.
Court.
Every Contention Of Attorneys
for Defense Sustained by
Able Opinion.


ceived the opinion handed down by
Judge Warrington in the case of A.
B. Baird VS.. Ohio county which was
recently reversed by the United States
Circuit Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit of Cincinnati thus
awarding Ohio county a new trial in
the case which had been preyiosuly de
cided against it by Judge Walter Ev-
ans of the Western Kentucky District.
The opinion is a brief one and sus-
tains the contention OF attorneys rep
resenting hte county in every particu-
lar upon which a decision is made.
Ii holds that the Fiscal Court of the
county is without authority to execute
promissory note for any purpose.
Quoting from a United States Suprem
Court report Judge Warrington says:
Our opinion is, that mere political
bodies constituted as counties are, for
the purpose of local police and admin
istration, and having the power of
levying taxes to defray all public char
ges created, whether they are or are
not formally invested with corporate
have no power or authority
to make and utter commercial paper
of any kind, unless such power is eX-
pressly conferred upon them by law,
or clearly implied from such other
power expressly given, which cannot
be fairly exercised without it." The
reiteration of this doctrine by the
court clearly establishes the conten-
ton of attorneys representing the
county that the note sued on by Baird
was and is absolutely void because
the Fiscal Court had no authority of
law to execute same. The court goes
further and holds that even though
the Fiscal Court had had authority TO
execute the note it had no authority
of law to deleagte the execution there
of to the commissioners Morton and
Martin. Hence the note is void also on
the idea that it was executed by the
commissioners.
In deciding this phase of the case
in favor of the county ani referring
to the law previously quoted, the
court says: Notwithstanding this
clear expression of the settled law,
1t might be conceded for the purpose
of this case that the Fiscal Court
could itself have issued or provided in
the manner stated in its order for
the issue of this particular note, in
case it were proved that the note was
issued as evidence of pre-existing and
outstanding debts, to that amount Of
the county, which had been
considered and approved by the
court Indeed, it might be assumed
that recovery could be had on such
acts of the court. But this simply
the necessity for indie
pendent proof. 1t does more; it af-
fects the presumptive or probative
weight of the instrument in dispute.
1t is not the case of a promissory not
issued in the exercise of explicit pow
err; but still we should not as at pres
ent advised without regard to the
question made touching the form of
the instrument) be inclined to hold
that a mere substitution of evidence
of a Just and valid debt should require
the formality of a new suit based on
the original evidence of the debt.
The opinion is concluded by the fol-
lowing paragraph, which seems to for
ever take Baird out of Court with no
chance of recovery:
1--WE are not convinced that the cir
attending the delay in
commencing the action on the note
in suit, augment the evidential char
acter of the instrument or of the
official acts upon which its execution
was based; especially is this so in
view of the testimony of the only
surviving officer who signed the
note, and of the surviving members
of the court who were in office at the
date of the order. Nor do We appre-
ciate the legal hardship said to be
cast upon plaintiff through the ap-
parent loss of the claims, since APP
propriate secondary evidence would
In that event be admissible. We do