Evening capital news. (Boise, Idaho) 1901-1927, 1916-12-14

the payment of the attorney fees and
costs incurred In creating the fund
| by asserting an attorneys II \ against
| it?
"As we view it, If. under the con
st.tution and statutes of tn tate an
| attorneys lien for service rendered
| the state may be asserted against
fund in favor of the state, the -rial
! court erred in dissolving the tempo
rary injunction: in refusing to retain
| jursdic ion of the case; and refusing
/ to require the state of Idaho and the
| National Surety company to answer
| the amended complaint in interven-
ton of the appellant herein"
CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY.
Later on the court says: ITO adopt
different rule in this case or any
case. no matter how just tho claim
might be, to permit state officers to
be harassed and bindered in the re-
covery of moneys embezzled by pub
lie officials by way of attorneys liens
for services alleged to have been rem
dered the state. would be contrary to
good public policy and detrimental
to the due administration of the af-
fairs of the government"
fin, the majority decision says:
"If appellants contract of employ
ment was made with the attorney gen
eral it must have been understood by
appellant that it was in pursuance of
an appropriation made by law. 1t will
be recalled that the Legislature con
vened in regular session subsequent
to the discovery of the embezzlement
of state funds by Allen, and the pre-
sumption is that they made ample pro-
vision for the payment of such ex
penses as would necessarily be in
CURED in recovering the moneys so
embezzled. The legislature at its bien-
NAL session in 1915, made an appro-
priation for the attorney generals Of
flee for that and the ensuing year for
$4,000 for the payment of salaries,
etc II
WITHOUT AUTHORITY.
1T is, therefore, quite evident that
the attorney general was without au-
thority to create any Indebtedness for
his office, and if there was no appro
priation out of which the claim of the
appellant could be paid, any attempt to
create an Indebtedness in favor of
appellant by the attorney general, If
the attorney general did attempt to
create any Indebtedness against the
state in excess of his appropriation,
would be absolutely void.
An examination of the statute with
reference to the duties of the state de-
pository board convinces us at once
that there is a total absence of statu-
tory or any authority given it whereby
it is authorized to create an indebt-
edness of the character sought to be
enforced by the appellant"
The state treasurer Is directed to
place in the proper fund the Coffin
claim set aside by the lower court
pending settlement of the case and
the order of the district court is va
Gated.
CHIEF JUSTICE DiSsENTs.
Chief Justice Sullivan declares in
his dissenting opinion that the funds
are not in tie treasury but in the
hands of the court and Coffin is en-
titled to be paid. He sets forth in
OPENING, lis opinion that the Coffin
claim played an important part in
politics and that injustice was done
Coffin through misrepresentation.
The question" says the chief JUS
ticc, lis whether the attorney is en-
titled to the payment of a reasonable
fee for the service rem
dered in producing a judgment amount
ing to nearly $154,000 in favor of the
state. The amount of the attorney fee
is not involved in this appeal
"As / view it," he continues later,
there was no effort made in this
matter to create a cain against the
state. The attorney general, tho de-
pository board and the appellant all
well knew that there was no attempt
in this matter to create claim
against the state. If the officers so
it, they are clearly guilty of
a crime. They knew that if they did
undertake to do that. they were vio-
ating the provisions of session laws.
1915, page 36l." Chief Justice Sulli-
van. however. does not presume there
was any such intent. Later on he
says
SAYS ANOTHER WAS PAID.
THE depository board employed two
attorneys to resist this claim of the
appellant IN the district court and the
record shows that those two attorneys
were paid out of the proceeds of this
very Judgment that the board now
claims is too sacred to be touched in
any manner for the payment of legal
costs or for the value of the attorneys /
services in procuring said judgment"
Concludin his dissenting opinion |
lfter discussing the issues involved at
ength and rccitins numerous authori-
les of Of her statps that "A claim roIIlU I