41 P. 133 (Kan.App. 1895), The City of Concordia v. Hagaman

Citation:41 P. 133, 1 Kan.App. 35
Opinion Judge:GARVER, J.:
Attorney:Hugh Alexander, city attorney, for plaintiff in error; Pulsifer & Alexander, of counsel. John W. Sheafor, and James M. Hagaman, for defendants in error.
Judge Panel:GARVER, J. All the Judges concurring.
Case Date:May 01, 1895
Court:Court of Appeals of Kansas

Page 133

41 P. 133 (Kan.App. 1895)

1 Kan.App. 35



J. M. HAGAMAN et al

Court of Appeals of Kansas, Northern Department, Central Division

May 1, 1895

Opinion Filed July 6, 1895.

MEMORANDUM.--Error from Cloud district court; F. W. STURGES, judge. Action by James M. Hagaman and others against the city of Concordia. Judgment for plaintiffs; defendant brings error. Affirmed. The nature of the action and the material facts are stated in the opinion, filed July 6, 1895.

Judgment affirmed.

Hugh Alexander, city attorney, for plaintiff in error; Pulsifer & Alexander, of counsel.

John W. Sheafor, and James M. Hagaman, for defendants in error.

GARVER, J. All the Judges concurring.



This was an action brought by the defendants in error against the city of Concordia, to recover a balance alleged to be due for certain services [1 Kan.App. 36] performed for the city in revising, compiling, and publishing in pamphlet form the city ordinances. This work was done under a special contract entered into between the defendants in error and the mayor and council of the city, the city agreeing to pay therefor one-half the legal rate prescribed by law for the publishing of city ordinances in a newspaper. At the time the contract was made and the services were performed, J. M. Hagaman was a member of the city council of Concordia, and he and his two sons, as partners, were engaged in the newspaper and job printing business in that city. The work contracted for was well done, in a manner satisfactory to the mayor and council, and the compilation of the ordinances was received and used by the city. At the contract price the work amounted to $ 468, of which sum the city paid $ 200, and refused to pay any more. The court found that the work was reasonably worth $ 300, and gave judgment for that sum, less the $ 200 paid. The bill of particulars alleged that the services were reasonably worth the amount sued for, being the same as the contract price. The city defended by claiming that the contract entered into was "in violation of law, and was illegal and forbidden both by statute and by common law, on grounds of public policy, and that therefore plaintiff could recover nothing for the work done, either the contract price or the reasonable value thereof."

Counsel for the city rely, in the first place, upon P 2466, General Statutes of 1889, as prohibiting the contract in question and barring any recovery. This section is § 4 of chapter 132, Laws of 1867, and provides--

"That all officers, state and county, and all officers appointed or elected for the purpose of overseeing and [1 Kan.App. 37] directing any of the public improvements of the state, and all officers holding and exercising any office of trust or profit under and by virtue of any law of the state, be and they are hereby prohibited from taking any contract, or performing or doing, or having performed or done for their own profit, any work in and about the office holden by them, or in or about any work over which they have in whole or in part the supervision, direction or control, and from furnishing any materials used in any such work. . . ."

The act is entitled "An act to...

To continue reading