The Leavenworth echo. [volume] (Leavenworth, Wash.) 1904-current, 1915-12-03
SHALL CITY BRING SUIT
CONTINUED from First Page)

The contract calls for the completion
OF these water works for definite sum.
The contract further provides that the
council alone shall have the right to
increase or decrease the work or alter
It in any particular. There does not
seem to be any increase or decrease
except the ordering OF the building Of
the bridge, which was provided for;
therefore I believe that all payments
made to Seaman & Quigg in excess Of
the contract price, both on the bridge
and on the water works, were made
without any authority Of law, and that
they can be recovered back both from
Seaman & Quigg and the officers who
voted them. In this connection, I call
your attention to notations made by the
city engineer on the letter Of Arthur J.
Cook, dated October 9Th, 1912, and
which Seaman & Quigg subsequently
accepted as a basis for the extras"
they put in, where there appears 10 be
no effort on the part OF Seaman &
Quigg to comply with these extras,
and it further appears that quite little
OF the articles therein stated as extra"
was on the original plans. I believe
the question Of the right to recover
even the $4,000 for extras" could be
gone into and they could not recover
anything for the work they did not do.
With reference to the right TO re-
cover for the work not done in accord
ance with the plans and specifications
Tor instance, reinforcing Of the hydrants,
called to my attention when in Leayen-
worth, and which the city was not
aware Of; that is too plain for argument
or to require the citation Of any author
ity. It was fraud upon the city. per
petrated by Seaman & Quigg, and
whether or not with the approval OF the
engineer makes no difference. find
this action may be instituted by the
city or By a taxpayer. Section $50,
volume !, and section 1871, volume 2,
Of Remington 4 Ballinger's Codes and
Sfatutes Of Washington, give the city
the night to maintain this action, and
the night for 4 taxpayer 10 maintain
this action is treated IN note to the
case Of Walker vs.. DiLlonvale, vol 10,
American and English Annotated Cases
az page TO. This rule is further an
ncgzced in the case Of Russell vs.
TATE, Is Southwestern Reporter, cage
$50. N the latter case the rule IS an
rounced that 7ou can hricg II equita-
bic action to cancel the warrants not
paid. and IN that acticr make any nee
essary parties To finally adiudIcate the
question IN this case Il would include
Seaman 4 Qs1igg. and the members Of
the city council w-o voted away the
money Of the City fer what practically
amounted ta 4 dcuarien- inaaulch as
there vas &c Liability IN tehaf Of the
city to Seaman z QrigE 5cr anything
over and Above the c1rtrzcs 1rice
That this acticr cau be maintained
against them, I CT. IN adGiricu ro the
authorities already cited to go1, HEATH
vs.. Albrook, 60 Northwestern, Eags
6t9, where speaking Of money caiG ous
to parties unauthorized By contract or
by law, they say
In legal contemplation therefore
the defendant stands al che hoiGina
money without right or title thereto
We have nc occasion &c determine Wila,
would be his right IN the crsrnisesy lad
the amounts drawn BY him been legally
due and owing To aim frGn The country
We are required To 20 nc further laan
to hold that the moneys having c6ne
into his possession Under the circIm-
stances shown, and having reached The
conclusion that, as matter Of legal iqht,
he was not entitled thereto, We cannot
sanction his resistance to the demand
for repayment, made solely en- the
ground that both he and the county
officers lahored under a mistaken ncticu
as to the legal effect and scope of the
contract under which be claimed to
have been acting"
Further citation is found in the case
of Webster VS.. Douglas County, III
Mz,-tb,xassa-x. ,,1a QQc 4, y1y;,.-.,s