Beane v. Givens
Idaho Supreme Court
APPEAL from District Court, Bingham County. The contract alleged in the first cause of action is void as being against public policy. Defendant was a public officer, and the claim is for “services” in “procuring a continuance” of defendant in a position of great public trust.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from District Court, Bingham County. The contract alleged in the first cause of action is void as being against public policy. Defendant was a public officer, and the claim is for “services” in “procuring a continuance” of defendant in a position of great public trust. However potent plaintiff’s influence, as Democratic national committeeman for Idaho, may have been, and however much it may have cost him, such influence is “not a commodity for which money can be demanded.” (Elkhart Go. Lodge v. Crary, 98 Ind. 238, 49 Am. Rep. 746; Oscanyan v. Arms Go., 103 IT. S. 261; Gray v. ILook, 4…
1Opinion of the CourtSullivan, C. J.
The complaint contains four alleged causes of action. The first cause is for services alleged to have been rendered at the special instance and request of the defendant in the procuring a continuance of the said defendant in his position as superintendent of the state insane asylum, and alleges that such services were reasonably worth $250. And for a second cause of action it is alleged that plaintiff rendered services for defendant.in and about the assignment of a certain desert land entry, and that such services were worth $100. And for a third cause of action it is alleged that defendant…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Shields v. JohnsonIdaho Supreme Court · 1906
- Harrety v. KontosMissouri Court of Appeals · 1944
- Givens v. KeeneyIdaho Supreme Court · 1900