Turner v. Cruzen

• Decision Date: 08 December 1886
• Citation: 30 N.W. 483,70 Iowa 202
• Parties: TURNER AND OTHERS v. CRUZEN AND OTHERS.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

70 Iowa 202

30 N.W. 483

TURNER AND OTHERS

v.CRUZEN AND OTHERS.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

December 8, 1886.

Appeal from Adams circuit court.

The plaintiffs aver that they are tax-payers of Adams county, and, as such, they bring this action to cancel a contract entered into between the county and the defendant Cruzen, which they allege to be ultra vires, and to restrain the defendant Hunter, as treasurer of the county, from paying certain warrants issued under the contract. The court rendered a decree granting the relief prayed, and the defendants appeal.F. M. Davis and S. McPherson, for appellants.

T. M. Stuart and W. O Mitchell, for appellees.

ADAMS, C. J.

The contract alleged to be ultra vires was made by the county with the defendant Cruzen, whereby the county purchased of him a certain farm, and improvements thereon, for the use of the county as a poor-farm, for the agreed price of $8,800. The want of power to make the contract is predicated upon the alleged fact that it was not authorized by a vote of the people. The question presented arises upon the pleadings, there being a demurrer to the defendants' answer. The action is brought, not only against Cruzen, as the county's vendor, and Hunter, as county treasurer, but against the supervisors of the county, but not against the county itself. The answer appears to be filed by Cruzen alone. It shows, among other things, that the contract has been fully executed on his part by a conveyance of the property to the county, and that the county has been occupying the same as a poor-farm for two years; that the reasonable rental value of the property is $800 a year, and that the county has never offered to reconvey the property, nor pay for the use of the same; that the property was worth more than the contract price; that the plaintiffs had full knowledge of the contract many months before the deed was executed, but stood by, and saw the contract carried out without objection; and that, by reason of the occupancy of the farm as a poor-farm, it has become depreciated in value. The defendant Cruzen, in his answer, further avers, in substance, that no request has ever been made of the county or board of supervisors to take any steps to cancel the contract, nor has any officer refused to bring an action to cancel it, and that the plaintiffs, without such request and refusal, are not the proper persons to bring such action. He further avers, in substance, that, in any event, Adams county should be made a party, and that, if the suit is to be maintained by the plaintiffs, the county should be made defendant.

The legal title to the property having been placed in the county, we are unable to see how the county could be divested by a decree to which it is not a party. It may be that the county has no desire to rescind, and could, in fact, show that its contract of purchase was not ultra vires. Without question, the county has a right to be heard before its title can be disturbed. Possibly the court below did not intend to...