Bailey v. Van Dyke
Decision Date | 09 October 1925 |
Docket Number | 4244 |
Citation | 240 P. 454,66 Utah 184 |
Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Parties | BAILEY et al. v. VAN DYKE, County Clerk and Auditor, et al |
Appeal from District Court, Second District, Weber County; J. N Kimball, Judge.
Suit by Hyrum S. Bailey and others against L. A. Van Dyke County Clerk and Auditor of Weber County, and another, to restrain the payment of the claim in favor of the State Agricultural College. From a judgment dismissing action, plaintiffs appeal.
AFFIRMED.
A. G Horn, of Odgen, for appellants.
Chez & Douglas, of Ogden, and W. H. Folland and Frank Evans, both of Salt Lake City, for respondents.
The plaintiffs, as residents and taxpayers of Weber county, brought this action against Weber county, and its auditor and treasurer, to restrain the payment of a claim for $ 1,250 in favor of the Agricultural College of the state, which had been presented to and allowed by the board of county commissioners. A demurrer to the plaintiffs' complaint was sustained, and the action dismissed, from which judgment plaintiffs appealed.
The complaint alleges that in January, 1923, the defendant Weber county entered into an agreement with the Weber county farm bureau, the Agricultural College of the state of Utah, and the director of the United States Extension Service (Department of Agriculture), a copy of which is set forth. Omitting formal and irrelevant portions, the agreement is as follows:
It is alleged that, pursuant to the terms of the agreement, Preston W. Thomas was appointed county agent, and ever since has claimed to be acting as such, but that "he did not do or perform any services such as are contemplated by law or by said contract, but, on the contrary, has performed other service for the farm bureau, which services were mostly performed outside of Weber county, Utah"; that the Agricultural College has filed a claim for $ 1,250 claimed to be due under the contract, which has been allowed by the board of county commissioners, but not yet paid, and, unless enjoined, will be paid.
It is then further alleged that the Agricultural College has not incurred any field expenses for extension agents in Weber county during the term of the contract; that no annual budget covering the proposed expenses of the county agent has ever been submitted to the Board of County Commissioners of Weber county, nor has any one outlined a county program of extension work for each calendar year, nor has any program of work or projects, including the budget of the county agents' time and work, ever been submitted to such extension director for his suggestions or approval, nor did said agent prepare any reports as provided by the rules or regulations of the service or otherwise, but, on the contrary, said county agent has devoted his entire time to private interests in the projects of buying dairy cattle and attempting the controlling of crop pests, including rodents insects, and contagious diseases, quarantine and inspection of live stock, weed control, and in the organization of private enterprises and corporations for the purpose of controlling and regulating the prices of farm commodities, and has entirely failed to do and perform the duties of his office, as provided for in section 5291 of Comp. Laws Utah 1917 and the acts of Congress pertaining to county agents; that said county agent has not visited from farm to farm or held any demonstrations pertaining to the introduction of crops, new methods of cultivation or new machinery, nor has he acted as an instructor in educational lines as contemplated by said act creating said office; that the Weber county farm bureau is a private organization, and during the year 1923 did not consist of over 500 farmers in Weber, Davis, and Box Elder counties, and that all of its acts pertaining to said contract were unauthorized by law, and that the attempt to appropriate the funds of Weber county under said contract is an attempt to appropriate public money to private uses; that said county...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
The Best Foods, Inc. v. Christensen
... ... within the meaning of article 13, § 5, of our state ... Constitution. In support of such contention the following ... cases are cited: Bailey v. Van Dyke, 66 ... Utah 184, 240 P. 454; State v. Camp Sing, ... 18 Mont. 128, 44 P. 516, 32 L.R.A. 635, 56 Am. St. Rep. 551; ... State v. Union ... ...
-
Utah Technology Finance Corp. v. Wilkinson
...to private enterprise; instead, a public purpose was served, and hence there was no unconstitutional lending of credit. Bailey v. Van Dyke, 66 Utah 184, 240 P. 454 (1925) (agricultural extension work); Lehi City v. Meiling, 87 Utah 237, 48 P.2d 530 (1935) (creation of metropolitan water dis......
-
Mountain States Tel. and Tel. Co. v. Garfield County, 880435
...to assist in discharging a public duty which in no way affects local self-government. Id., 134 P. at 564. Again, in Bailey v. Van Dyke, 66 Utah 184, 240 P. 454 (1925), we found no violation of section 5 by a statute which authorized county commissioners to enter into contracts for agricultu......
-
Branch v. Salt Lake County Service Area No. 2 Cottonwood Heights
...Cal. 653, 269 P. 630, 635 (1928).24 87 Utah 237, 48 P.2d 530 (1935).25 Note 13, supra.26 See p. 161 of 24 Utah, 66 P. 1061.27 66 Utah 184, 192, 240 P. 454 (1925).28 42 Utah 548, 553--555, 134 P. 560 (1913).29 In Re Hunter's Estate, 97 Colo. 279, 49 P.2d 1009, 1011, 101 A.L.R. 1202 (1935); t......