Berka v. Woodward

Citations

• 125 Cal. 119
• 57 P. 777
• 1899 Cal. LEXIS 811

Syllabus

<p>Municipal Corporations—Illegal Contract by Member of Council—Implied Contract Prohibited.—The provisions of <i city charter and of the Political Code forbidding a member of the city council to be directly or indirectly interested in any contract made by the council, and of the Penal Code providing a penalty therefor, apply both to express and implied contracts; and a member of such council who has expressly contracted with it for the sale of lumber and materials to the city, cannot recover their value upon an implied contract.</p> <p>Id—Recovery upon Implied Contract, When Permissible.—It is only where contracts of public officers with their counties or municipalities have not been expressly forbidden by law, and are not malum in se, but are merely considered contrary to public policy, that the officer is allowed to recover upon an implied contract, upon a quantum meruit or quantum valelat. But no recovery of any kind can be had where the contract is either malum in se, or expressly prohibited.</p> <p>Id.—Effect of Penalty—Illegal Contbact—Where a statute pronounces a penalty for an act, a contract founded upon such act is void, even though the statute does not pronounce it void nor expressly prohibit it.</p> <p>Id.—Allowance of Claim by Council—Duty of Tbeasureb—Mandamus.—The allowance of a claim by the city council for the value of lumber and materials sold to the city by a member of the council does not give the claim a validity not otherwise possessed. It is the duty of the treasurer to pay only legal demands against his funds; and he cannot be compelled by mandamus to pay such claim.</p>