Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 17.pdf/414

 NOTES OF RECENT CASES

393

state of Pennsylvania passed a resolution as treasury by the committees of the legislature, follows: "Whereas the dedication of a monu by which the tax payers of the state can be ment, erected in the memory of the late Gen. made to pay claims which, as in this instance, U. S. Grant in New York, occurs on April 2yth neither the General Assembly of the Common and is a matter of national importance, which wealth nor any other self-respecting legislative the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania should suit body would for one instant think of approving. ably recognize as commemorating the life and Had the plaintiff's claim, the character of which deeds of a hero whose memory we revere, there is shown by the items thereof, and the testimony fore, be it resolved that the members of the been presented to the Senate and House in open Senate and House of Representatives attend said session at the time the joint resolution was passed dedication in a body and that all matters per we are satisfied that those bodies would not taining to such attendance be referred to the have authorized the committee to contract for committee of military affairs of the Senate and or pay it. It would have shocked the legislative House." This resolution was vetoed by the conscience as well as that of the people of the Governor but was promptly passed over his Commonwealth. The testimony leaves no doubt veto. The committee to whom arrangements as to the purpose in view when the contract were referred made arrangements not only for was made and what was expected and what transportation but for two meals to be furnished was furnished in pursuance of it. About $1700 by a caterer on the day of the dedication, and worth of food and $3000 worth of wines and an action in assumpsit by the caterer gave rise liquors were consumed by 415 .cm-sis of the to the case of Russ v. Commonwealth, 60 Atl. state in six and one-half hours. This tells the 169. The majority of the court holds that under brief but comprehensive story of the manner in the delegation of authority to the committee of which the money claimed here was applied (in military affairs, that committee had power to the language of the preamble to the joint resolu make the contract under consideration and also tion) 'In commemoration of the life and deeds that the legislature had power to enact a resolution. of a hero, whose memory we revere'." Justices Messterzat and Potter, dissenting, while readily concurring in the statement that the legis PROMISSORY NOTES. (INDORSEMENT — lature had power to pass the resolution, deny FRAUDULENT PROCUREMENT — EVIDENCE OF the validity of the conclusion that the resolution SIMILAR FRAUDS) SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON. as passed authorized the committee to make In Yakima Valley Bank v. McAllister, 79 Pac. the contract into which they entered. The dis senting opinion sets out the itemized bill rendered, 1119, the Supreme Court of Washington is called showing charges of $1,678.36 for table supplies, upon to determine the question of the enforci$3,026.60 for wines and liquors and $450.00 for bility in the hands of a bona fide holder of a cigars. A part of the testimony of the chair note, the indorsement of which by the payee, who was also the maker, was procured by mis man of the committee, which made the arrange ments, is also quoted, wherein that gentleman representation and fraud. An evidence point of stated that "the plaintiff furnished an elegant considerable interest also arises in this case, to the comprehension of which a statement of facts dinner for us with wines and liquors and every thing included with cigars." This witness also involved is necessary. It appears that defendant testified that he did not remember exactly what was approached by persons claiming to be life was furnished in the way of food; that it was insurance agents and was solicited to take out so fine that he had forgotten exactly all the a policy in their company. An agreement was elegancies they had but that he remembered finally entered into between defendant and these that they had White Seal champagne and that persons, by the terms of which a policy for $10,000 there was plenty of whiskey and plenty of beer was to be forwarded to defendant on the con and plenty of apollinaris, though he did not dition that he might examine it, submit it to his legal advisers and retain it if it corresponded know how many drank apollinaris. In comment ing upon this and other testimony of the same with the representations made by the solicitors. general effect, the dissenting opinion says that Defendant was to have possession of the policy the character of the claim conclusively rebuts for some six weeks in order to make this examin any implication that the legislature in passing ation, and it was represented to him that as an earnest of his intention to do business with the the resolution intended to authorize the com mittee to make a contract for it. "Such inter company it would be necessary for him to draw pretation of the resolution," say the dissenting up a note payable to himself and signed by justices "opens the door to raids upon the state himself and also to sign a contract releasing