Hill County v. Shaw & Borden Co.

(after stating the facts as above). [ 1 ] .The statutory provision of which it is alleged the contract of the defendant in error is in violation is as follows (we quote from appellant’s brief, as its correctness is not questioned):

This statute has been held to be constitutional and valid by the Supreme Court of Montana in a case involving the validity of the very contract which defendant in error seeks to disavow for the purpose of recovery in the present action. Hersey v. Neilson et al., 47 Mont. 132 , 131 Pac. 30 , Ann. Cas. 1914C, 963.

The contention presented here is that, notwithstanding the illegality of such contract, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the property deliv - erecl to the county, or rather the value thereof; the county having converted 1he same to its own üse. .

It will he premised that the plaintiffs contract was and is illegal and void because prohibited by law. The law requires the commissioners of the county to contract with some newspaper of the county, and the newspaper contracted with to sublet, if at all, to some newspaper of the state. The requirement is a prohibition against contracting with any other parties than those specified, and any…