## Facts

- The County of Cook (plaintiff) sued former County Clerk Edward J. Barrett (defendant) in chancery, seeking imposition of a constructive trust and an accounting for secret payments Barrett allegedly received while in office.   
- Barrett served as elected County Clerk from 1956–1970, a position of trust with duties to act for the benefit of the people of Cook County; his statutory salary was to be his sole compensation.   
- During Barrett’s tenure, the County Board of Commissioners purchased and rented voting machines, and Barrett’s recommendations on contracts and proposals were effectively determinative of which vendors were selected.   
- The County alleged Barrett abused his position by accepting secret payments (bribes, fees, or allowances) from the Shoup Voting Machine Corporation—and also from an insurance broker—for steering voting‑machine and related insurance business to them, causing the County to pay more than it otherwise would have.   
- The County also sued the sureties on Barrett’s official bond, seeking to recover on the bonds for amounts wrongfully obtained.   
- Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing: (1) a public body cannot, as a matter of law, maintain an action to recover bribes paid to its officer; (2) constructive trust was unavailable against someone in Barrett’s position; (3) the County was really seeking only a money judgment with a simple accounting, so an equitable action was improper; and (4) the County had not sufficiently alleged actual damages.   
- The trial court granted the motions and dismissed the amended complaint, holding that a public body could not maintain such an action; the County appealed.   

## Issues

1. Whether a public body such as a county may maintain a cause of action to recover bribes or secret payments received by one of its public officers in connection with official duties.   
2. Whether the allegations that the officer secretly received payments because of his official position are sufficient, if proven, to support imposition of a constructive trust and an equitable accounting, notwithstanding arguments that the County’s remedy should be purely legal or that no specific damages were pleaded.   

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the dismissal of the County’s amended complaint and remanded the case for further proceedings.   
- The court held that a county can maintain an action to recover bribes or secret profits taken by a public official arising from his public office.   
- The court further held that, if proven, the allegations that Barrett received secret payments in breach of his fiduciary duties support the imposition of a constructive trust and an accounting over those funds.   

## Legal Principles

- Public officials owe a fiduciary duty to the governmental body and its citizens; they must not secretly profit from their official position or from transactions they influence in that capacity.   
- A constructive trust arises by operation of law to prevent unjust enrichment when a person acquires property or benefits through a breach of fiduciary duty or other wrongful conduct.   
- A public body may sue to recover secret profits or bribes obtained by one of its officers, even if the public body did not pay the bribes directly; the focus is on the breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment.   
- Availability of a constructive trust and accounting does not depend on a detailed showing of specific monetary damages at the pleading stage where the allegation is that a fiduciary secretly profited from his position.   

## Conclusion

County of Cook v. Barrett establishes that a governmental entity may bring an equitable action against a former public official to recover bribes or secret profits obtained through breach of fiduciary duty, and that constructive trust and accounting are appropriate remedies to strip the official of his wrongful gains.


County of Cook v. Barrett, 36 Ill. App. 3d 623, 344 N.E.2d 540 (Ill. App. Ct. 1975)