|
• .
<br />•
<br />Knox W. Askins, Esq. -2- May 21, 1974
<br />Article 988 of the Texas Civil Statutes provides, in
<br />part:
<br />"* * *. No member of the city council, or any
<br />other officer of the corporation, shall be di-
<br />rectly or indirectly interested in any work,
<br />business or contract, the expense, price or
<br />consideration of which is paid from the city
<br />treasury, * * *."
<br />In Givens vs. Butler County, 165 S.W.2d 651, decided
<br />by the Supreme ourt of M ssouri, t e sale of County land to the
<br />wife of the County Judge was held invalid, the Court declaring:
<br />"* * ~''At common law and generally under
<br />statutory enactment, it is now established
<br />beyond question that a contract made by an offi-
<br />cer of a municipality with himself, or in which
<br />he is interested, is contrary to public policy
<br />and tainted with illegality; and this rule applies
<br />whether such officer acts alone on behalf of the
<br />municipality, or as a member of aboard of (r~z~)
<br />council. * * * It is impossible to lay down :!~,y
<br />general rule defining the nature of the int;r~,1°,:3L
<br />of a municipal officer wh:Lch comes w.Lthiri t;}~ 1
<br />operation of these principles. _An _ciirer,t; ~.
<br />indirect interest in the sub,~ect n-ia~~er ~_~,'"~~,_~ ~~ (.'i-
<br />c en o ain e con rac wi elg~a £~ ~ : , ; ~:`
<br />t ie interest e suc as 1-o s~'f e' c'£"~£Fie uc~E„~, 4~I ~-~nd
<br />rs C ~ .,,.n.,4...~
<br />con uct o e o f'~Cer ether 3.n e~ma ix~ ~~~, the
<br />contrac or in i s performance . ~~~
<br />~~ ,~ s a
<br />Another case pointing out what interest } ~ ~ ~~,y m~{ke
<br />a transaction voidable is Yonkers Bus Co. vs. Ma1tb's ~~`'!',~?3 N.Y.S.?.d F~'j,
<br />where we find
<br />~` ~
<br />"'Interest' in a contract as used in Secon~, s ~ f; +=~,ss
<br />Cities Law, Sec . 19, has usually been con. ~~ `` ' " f as
<br />a financial or pecuniary interest. See o~~~" ~~~~~ of
<br />Van Kirk, U., in People ex rel. Crowe v. I'~4` ';~~ 8
<br />Misc. 230, 151 N.Y.S. 835. The interest r ~~'~'~~~iot
<br />~,. _~
<br />however be one directl flowin -from the ~~,~~~'~~~~~:~ct;
<br />t~ ~ Y ., ~~.._....w.
<br />itse 'ee opinion of ooard, J., in Yeof~~ ',~~f~x rel.
<br />~c i~enectady Illuminating Co. v. Board of ~~~~ ~' aisors
<br />of Schenectady County, 166 App.Div. 758, 7er~:', ~,+151 N.Y.S.
<br />1012. The general welfare and pros erity ai I ;he com-
<br />pany of an off cer may a an n crest c~r, :n';~'-""^
<br />
|