Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1911-11-20

should be applied without evasion to
| all contracts falling within its provis-
| ions. So applying it, the result necessa-
rily follows that the city's contract
| with Flanagan was absolutely void.
| Goodrich VS.. Waterville, IS Maine, 80 =
| In Consolidated Coal Co VS. Board
| Of Trustees of Institute for the Blino,
| 129 n. w. 193, mich. 1870 q member
of the defendant Board of Trustees
was Il stakeholder in the plaintiff cor
poration which sold coal to the State
Institution for the Blind. Such mem
| Der Pad no control of the corporation
and received no benefit other than the
dividend on his stock, and had nothing
to do with securing the contract, but
| it was held by the supreme court of
| Michigan that the sale was within the
prohibition Of the statute which pro-
yided that no trustee Of any board
having control of any public institu-
ton in the state should be interested
in any contract for the sale of sup
plies to such institution. and that the
contract WAS therefore void In the
opinion of the court it is said: I'VE do
not regard the statute as merely put
ting in form of positive law rule de-
veloped by the courts but as a legis-
latiye rule founded in public policy,
the plain effect of which the courts are
not at liberty to deny or amend. There
can be but one answer 10 the question"
In City of Northport vs.. Northport
Town Site Co, eS Pac. 204 627 Wash
543) il was held that whore a member
OF the city council was stockholder
and business manager Of n lumber
company and the lumber com
rany sold to the contractor mate
riais for Improvements on the streets
Of the plaintiff city, such member was
within the statute prohibiting any such
.ofticer to be directly Interested in any
contract with the city
| In Commonwealth VS.. De Camp, III
| Pa. St. 1l2 f35 Atl COD, it vas held
| that the secretary, who WAS also
| stakeholder Of q corporation having
a contract for the lighting Of the city.
| is within the statute prohibiting any
| councilman from being Interested in
any contract with the city. though he
was elected councilman after the eX
ecution Of the contract.
| In Foster 4 al. VS.. City Of Cape
May 81 ATE 1859. IN J. $50. il was
| held that Under a charter providing
! that To member Of the city council
| shall he interested in any contract the
expense Of which shall be paid by the
| city a member who held as collateral
| security q share of the stock of the
! Electric Light Co., was disqualified to
| vote 20 authorize a~-contraet with said
| company to light the city The men,
| Der testified that he never put any
value on the stock and that tile COM
pany had not been prosperous, but in
the opinion the court said: TT is
! probable that a company which there
tefere had not been prosperous may
become prosperous and this stock
| which was valueless may become Of
value by means of this contract which
Johasons vote awarded To the com
PAM. The interest of johnson may be
! small but the statute make no dis
criminaticn with respect to the inter
est which should disqualify,"
In Drake VS.. city of Elizabeth, 81
Att 24S, On. J. 1909, the city council
| of the defendant city awarded a con-
tract for state printing TO the Times
Publishing Co. and il appearing that
several members of the Council were
| stockholders in the publishing com
pany, it was held that this infection
was sufficient ground for avoiding the
action of the entire beard; and in the
analogous case of Traction Co. VS..
Board of Public Works, 56 n. j. l. All,
| go All. 1857, ii appeared that the vote
! of the disqualified member was not
necessary TO the result, but the court
said: 'rhe fact that there were a suf-
| ficient number of votes apart from his
VOTE to pass the ordinance, is no an
swer to the objection taken upon the
vote The infection of the concurrence
| of the interested person spreads 50
thai the action of the whole board is
voidable"
In Milford VS.. Milford Water Co, II
AT. 1S5. (Pa. 1889, = L. r. A. page 1922,
a majority Of the city council made
contract for the supply of water with
water company in which they We're
directors, bur the contract was held
void under the statute prohibiting any
member of any corporation or pubic
institution or any officer or agent
thereof to be in any wise interested in
any contract for supplies TO said cor
poration or municipality. This act,
said the court" is another and Valu-
able safeguard thrown around munich
palitieS II was passed to protect peo-
pie from the frauds of their own SER
wants and agents. 1t may be there was
no fraud actual or intended in the
present case, but the court will not
allow il TO be made an entering wedge
to destroy the act"
But the facts in Mullaly V. City of New
York. 3 Hun. 661, IN. y. Supreme 1879
are strikingly similar to those in the case