Turner v. Cruzen
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Adams Circuit Gou/rt. 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, wliieli they allege to be ultra vires, and to restrain tbe 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.
1Opinion of the Court
Adams, Cu. J.
The contract alleged to be ultra wires was made by'the county with the defendant Cruzen, whereby the i. county: poor-farm;1 ultra vires: setting asido contract at payer* county not a party. county purchased of him a certain farm, and improvements thereon, for the use of the county » „ as a poor-iarm, lor the agreed pnce ox $8,800. 1 , ’ SR v ’ ^ie wan^ °i' powei' to make the contract is pred-jcated 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…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Argenti v. City of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- Moore v. . MayorNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- Leonard v. City of CantonMississippi Supreme Court · 1858
- County Commissioners v. HuntOhio Supreme Court · 1856
- Pratt v. ShortNew York Supreme Court · 1877
3Cited by15 opinions
- Coit v. City of Grand RapidsMichigan Supreme Court · 1898
- Walker v. City of RichmondCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1916
- First National Bank v. City of EmmetsburgSupreme Court of Iowa · 1912
- Moore v. HeldSupreme Court of Iowa · 1887
- Gillespie v. GibbsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1906
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.