Bailey v. Van Dyke

Decision Date09 October 1925
Docket Number4244
Citation240 P. 454,66 Utah 184
CourtUtah Supreme Court
PartiesBAILEY 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 &amp Douglas, of Ogden, and W. H. Folland and Frank Evans, both of Salt Lake City, for respondents.

CHERRY, J. GIDEON, C. J., and THURMAN, FRICK, and STRAUP, JJ., concur.

OPINION

CHERRY, J.

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:

"Effective January 1, 1923.

"The object of the work under this memorandum of understanding shall be to conduct agricultural field studies and demonstrations, to carry on home economics work with farm women, to stimulate agricultural and home activities among boys and girls, and to assist in stimulating better business methods on the farm and in the home of Weber county.

"In performing this work it is understood that the following plan will be followed:

"(1) The Weber County farm bureau, and county commissioners, the Agricultural College of Utah, and the United States Department of Agriculture agree to co-operate in the conduct of extension work in agriculture and home economics within the county under the system of county extension work provided for in sections 5290 to 5296, Compiled Laws of Utah 1917, and the Acts of Congress of May 6 and June 30, 1914. * * *

"(2) The county commissioners shall pay to the financial secretary of the Utah Agricultural College on November 1st the sum of $ 1,250.00 and on February 1st the sum of $ 1,250.00 to assist the extension service of the Utah Agricultural College in paying the salaries and field expenses of a county agricultural agent and a home demonstration agent; provided, however, that no payments shall be made until verified claims are filed by said county agent and said home demonstration agent, showing that they have actually devoted to field work in Weber county that portion of their time for which the compensation is claimed.

"(3) The Extension Service, representing the United States Department of Agriculture and the Utah Agricultural College, shall employ a county agricultural agent and a home demonstration agent to do extension work in Weber county, and shall pay the entire salaries and expenses out of the county, state, and federal budgets provided for such work. The employment of these agents shall be effective July 1, 1922, and shall continue until service is discontinued in accordance with paragraph 8 of this contract.

"(4) The farm bureau executive committee and the extension director, or his official representative, shall make out an annual budget covering the proposed expense of the agents for the fiscal year, and submit to the county commissioners not later than May 30th of each year.

"(5) The farm bureau and the extension agents shall outline a definite county program of extension work for each calendar year. The program of work and projects, including a budget of each agent's time, shall be submitted to the extension director not later than April 1st of each year, for his suggestions and approval.

"(6) The county agents shall devote their entire time to the work of the county, except as they are called in to state and district conventions, unless otherwise agreed to by the cooperation parties. These agents will be under the general supervision of the state leaders in charge of the respective lines of work, and the agents will be at all times subject to the rules and regulations of the Agricultural College of Utah and the United States Department of Agriculture.

"(7) The county agricultural agent shall be held responsible for all administrative work in the county. The agents shall prepare reports covering all work done by them as provided by rules and regulations of the service. Annual reports shall be prepared each year by the agents. These shall be signed by the agents concerned and approved by the state leaders. One copy of all reports made shall be sent to the county commissioners, one to the Extension Service, and one to the county farm bureau office.

"(8) Any party to this agreement desiring to discontinue cooperation in the employment of any of these agents must serve notice in writing to the other co-operating parties concerned at least sixty days prior to the 30th of June of each year, except by mutual agreement among the co-operating parties."

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
4 cases
  • The Best Foods, Inc. v. Christensen
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • 6 Febrero 1930
    ... ... 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
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • 31 Julio 1986
    ...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
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • 1 Mayo 1991
    ...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
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • 3 Noviembre 1969
    ...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......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT