Ada County v. Gess

Citation4 Idaho 611,43 P. 71
PartiesADA COUNTY v. GESS
Decision Date31 December 1895
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Idaho

PRACTICE-COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, SUIT BY-CLAIMS AGAINST COUNTY.-Appeal from the action of the board of county commissioners in the rejection or allowance of claims against the county, is not the only remedy. Suit may be brought either by or against the county.

ASSESSOR AND TAX COLLECTOR.-If paid in excess of allowance by constitution may be recovered by suit at law. Money paid an officer of the county by the county commissioners, in violation of the provisions of the constitution may be recovered back in a suit at law.

(Syllabus by the court.)

APPEAL from District Court, Ada County.

Judgment affirmed. Costs awarded to respondent.

Brown &amp Cahalan and W. E. Borah, for Appellant.

It will be seen by reference to the pleadings that this is an action brought by the county to recover money paid out upon an order of the board of county commissioners, from which order no appeal was taken. Our statute provides that an appeal may be taken from any order, decision or action of the board while acting in their official capacity by any person aggrieved thereby or by any taxpayer of the county where any demand is allowed against the county, or when any order, decision or action of the board is prejudicial to the public interest. This statute is broad and comprehensive, providing for an appeal from any order, action or decision in allowing illegal or prejudicial claims; and it would make no difference, so far as the application of the principle of law here invoked is concerned, whether the claims of Mr. Gess were wholly and totally illegal or not, as it would yet be necessary to review the matter by an appeal. This statute has always been interpreted, as we understand, to provide the only remedy for a review of the action of the board of county commissioners. (Idaho Rev. Stats., sec. 1776; Picotte v. Watt, 3 Idaho 447, 31 P. 805; Meller v. Board of Commrs., ante p. 44, 35 P. 712; Davis v. Commrs., 4 Mont 292, 1 P. 750; Morgan v. Board of County Commrs., ante, p. 418, 39 P. 1118; Rogers v. Hayes, 3 Idaho 597, 32 P. 259; Brown v. Otoe County, 6 Neb. 111; Clark v. Dayton, 6 Neb. 192; Ragoss v. Cummings, 36 Neb. 375, 54 N.W. 683; State v. Churchill, 37 Neb. 702, 56 N.W. 484; Sioux County v. Jameson, 43 Neb. 265, 61 N.W. 596; Martin v. Supervisors, 29 N.Y. 645; Brady v. Supervisors, 2 Sand. 449; Brady v. Supervisors, 10 N.Y. 260; Boutetourt Co. v. Burger, 86 Va. 530, 10 S.E. 264; Board of Warren Co. v. Gregory, 42 Ind. 32.) It was certainly proper under the law for the county to refuse to allow Mr. Gess' bills in excess of the amount which was due him according to their contention. There could be no reason or necessity under the statute for the allowance of these bills upon the part of the county, and then turn around and bring a suit for the recovery of them. In other words, we insist that the county board, having passed upon these bills and the payment having been made, that under the general rule that an action will not lie to recover for amounts paid under a mutual mistake of law, applies in this case. (Painter v. Polk County, 81 Iowa 242, 25 Am. St. Rep. 489, 47 N.W. 65; Badeau v. United States, 130 U.S. 439, 9 S.Ct. 579; Randall v. Lyon County, 20 Nev. 35, 14 P. 583; Eley v. Miller, 7 Ind.App. 529, 34 N.E. 836; La Salle Co. v. Milligan, 143 Ill. 321, 32 N.E. 196; Bishop on Contracts, secs. 630, 631; Cox v. Mayor, 103 N.Y. 519, 9 N.E. 48; De Graff v. Board of Commrs., 46 Minn. 319, 48 N.W. 1135; Selby v. United States, 47 F. 800; Brumagim v. Tillinghast, 18 Cal. 269, 271, 79 Am. Dec. 176; Garrison v. Tillinghast, 18 Cal. 404, 407; Clark v. Dutcher, 9 Cow. 674; Mackey v. Fullerton, 7 Colo. 556, 4 P. 1198; Brummitt v. McGuire, 107 N.C. 351, 12 S.E. 191; Knobloch v. Zschwetske, 55 N. Y. S.Ct. 556.)

Attorney General George M. Parsons and Hawley & Puckett, for Respondent County.

The appellant herein, Thomas B. Gess, was assessor and tax collector of Ada county during the years 1891 and 1892. That as the revenue of the county was collected by him, he paid the entire amounts so collected over to the county treasurer, and at the several meetings of the board of county commissioners, held each year, presented to the board his bills for allowance, said bills being the percentage allowed by law. That said bills were allowed and warrants issued. That the aggregate amount of said bills for the year 1891 was the sum of $ 6,510.24, and for the year 1892 the sum of $ 7,955.12. That no part of said sums has ever been returned to Ada county. That demand therefor was made in behalf of said county prior to the commencement of this action. Judgment was entered in favor of respondent for $ 8,465.05 and interest. Section 7 of article 18 of the constitution provides that the assessor shall receive as compensation for his services not more than $ 3,000 per year. Section 8 of the same article provides that all fees and commissions received by such officer in excess of the maximum compensation shall be paid to the county treasurer for the use and benefit of the county. If the contention of counsel is correct, a great injustice was certainly done the defendant in Ada County v. Ryals, decided at the January, 1895, term of this court. In that case the officer's fees came from individuals and from the county. His maximum compensation was exceeded by reason of fees as probate judge, clerk of the probate court and superintendent of public instruction exceeding the sum of $ 2,000 per year, and he was compelled to return the surplus. We urge the reasoning of the court in that case applies directly to the one under consideration. (Ada Co. v. Kyals, ante, p. 365, 39 P. 556.) This court has already decided that in no event and under no circumstances can an assessor receive a greater compensation than is provided for by section 7, article 18, of constitution. (Guheen v. Curtis, 3 Idaho 443, 31 P. 805.) The powers of the county "can only be exercised by the board of county commissioners, or by agents or officers, acting under their authority, or authority of law." (Rev. Stats., sec. 1731.) One of the tenets of statutory construction is that such a construction of the statute as will lead to absurdity should never be adopted. "The idea of a county appealing from the allowance of a claim made by its own court is simply ridiculous." (Chicot County v. Tilghman, 26 Ark. 461, 463.) "The county commissioners' court cannot bind the county by ordering a claim to be paid which is not made a county charge by statute, and by allowing more than the statute distinctly limits, or by an allowance in the face of a statutory prohibition." (Shirk v. Puloski Co., 4 Dill. 209, 213, 214, F. Cas. No. 12,794.) "No government has ever held itself liable to individuals for misfeasance, laches or the unauthorized exercise of power by its officers and agents." (Gibbons v. United States, 8 Wall. 269; Mechem on Public Officers, sec. 852; People v. Supervisors of New York, 1 Hill, 362; Green's Brice's Ultra Vires, 58; 2 Dillon on Municipal Corporations, p. 1186, note 3; Cumberland County v. Edwards, 77 Ill. 544; Commissioners v. Moore, 53 Ala. 25; Peoria County v. Roche, 65 Ill. 77.)

The defendant was elected assessor of Ada county, Idaho on November 10, 1890, was regularly qualified, filed his official bond, entered upon the duties of his office, and acted as such assessor and collector during the years 1891 and 1892, and until the second Monday in January, 1893. During the year 1891 the defendant, as assessor and ex-officio tax collector of said Ada county, filed accounts against Ada county for the sum of $ 6,510.24 for services as such officer during the year 1891. Said accounts were allowed by the board of county commissioners of said county, and defendant received from the auditor of said county, warrants to the amount of the above-named sum. Defendant still retains the sum of $ 6,510.24. During the year 1892 the defendant, as such assessor and ex-officio tax collector of said county, filed with the board of county commissioners of said county, for services rendered as such officer, bills and accounts amounting to the sum of $ 7,055.12, which said bills were allowed by the board, and warrants therefor issued to said assessor, which warrants were paid by the county treasurer. Demand was made upon the defendant by the plaintiff for the sum of $ 4,055.12 of said money so received and retained in the year 1892. Demand was also made upon said assessor for the sum of $ 3,510.24 of the amount received by him in the year 1891. Defendant refuses to pay over to said county any part of the money so demanded, and the county now claims that the defendant is indebted to it in the sum of $ 8,465.36, also for the sum of $ 1,059.17, interest on said sum last above mentioned from the time of the commencement of this action. This suit was commenced on the twenty-third day of November, 1893. Cause was tried before the court, a jury having been waived by the parties, resulting in a judgment in favor of the county for the sum of $ 9,525.33, with interest thereon at the rate of ten per cent per annum from the date of the judgment until paid, together with plaintiff's costs and disbursements incurred in the action, amounting to the sum of $ 13.85. Judgment was rendered against the defendant March 1, A. D. 1895. From this judgment the defendant appeals to this court.

MORGAN, C. J. Sullivan and Huston, JJ., concur.

OPINION

MORGAN, C. J.

(After Stating the Facts.)--The appellant contends that, the bills having been presented...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • Independent School District No. 5 ex rel. Moore v. Collins
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • December 8, 1908
    ...... . . (Syllabus. by the court.). . . APPEAL. from the District Court of the Second Judicial District, for. the County of Latah. Hon. Edgar C. Steele, Judge. . . Action. to recover money alleged to have been paid on a void contract. by a school district ... voluntary and made with a full knowledge of all the facts of. the transaction, may be recovered back. (Ada County v. Gess, 4 Idaho 611, 43 P. 71; Fremont County v. Brandon, 6 Idaho 482, 56 P. 264; Anderson v. Lewis, 6 Idaho 51, 52 P. 163; Tacoma v. Lillis,. 4 Wash. ......
  • Lamar Township v. City of Lamar
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • July 14, 1914
    ...... and collect taxes on all property within the city limits. Sec. 9400, R. S. 1909. A township is a political subdivision. of a county for local governmental purposes and is in a sense. a quasi corporation. County roads and bridges are matters of. general or public concern, while ... especially when made to another officer, may be recovered. back. 30 Cyc. 1315; Ada County v. Gess, 43 P. 71. (Idaho) ; Heath v. Albrook, 98 N.W. 619;. Allegheny v. Grier, 36 A. 353; Ellis v. State. Auditor, 65 N.W. 577. (5) The ......
  • County of Ada v. Bullen Bridge Company
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • February 6, 1897
    ...court may affirm, reverse or modify the order, decision or action appealed from. (Picotte v. Watt, 3 Idaho 447, 31 P. 805; Ada County v. Gess, 4 Idaho 611, 43 P. 71; Morgan v. Board of Commrs., 4 Idaho 418, 39 P. Rogers v. Hayes, 3 Idaho 597, 32 P. 259; Clark v. Dayton, 6 Neb. 192; 2 Pomero......
  • Waters v. State to Use of Maryland Unemployment Ins. Fund, 220
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • June 29, 1959
    ...lawful fees); Independent School Dist. v. Mittry, 1924, 39 Idaho 282, 226 P. 1076 (overpayment by town to contractor); Ada County v. Gess, 1895, 4 Idaho 611, 43 P. 71 (overpayment to county executor); Biddeford v. Benoit, 1929, 128 Me. 240, 147 A. 151 (city paid bond which should have been ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT