Adams v. Essex County
| Decision Date | 24 February 1910 |
| Citation | 91 N.E. 557,205 Mass. 189 |
| Parties | ADAMS v. ESSEX COUNTY. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Sweeney & Cox, for plaintiff.
H Huestis Newton and Charles M. Cram, for defendant.
The declaration is upon an account annexed of four items, but the fourth having been waived; the other items are for services rendered by the plaintiff as an architect, in preparing, and furnishing plans for proposed county buildings, and for the proposed alterations in the building used for the registry of deeds. By their answer to the first question, the jury have determined that, exclusive of the second item, the total amount charged represents the fair and reasonable value of his services, and the questions for decision are, whether the defendant is responsible for the whole, or any part of this sum, or for the amount of the second item. In employing the plaintiff, the county commissioners, although a local body whose duties related principally to the affairs of the county, acted as a board of statutory officers whose power to bind the county by contract depended upon the authority conferred by the Legislature. Morse v. Norfolk Co., 170 Mass. 555, 556, 49 N.E. 925; Connors v. Stone, 177 Mass. 424, 428, 59 N.E. 71. By Rev. St. c. 14, § 31 county commissioners were empowered 'to provide for the erecting and repairing of court houses, jails, and other necessary public buildings within and for the use of the county.' No restriction seems to have been placed upon the amount necessary to be expended, which was apparently left to the sound judgment of the board. But by section 32 in making the estimates of taxes for county charges to be laid annually before the general court, they were required to include for the next ensuing year, all charges and debts for the building and repairing of courthouses, and other county buildings. Gen. St. c. 17, §§ 16, 18, and Pub. St. c. 22, § 20, and chapter 23, § 22, by reenactment contained similar provisions. To check a growing tendency to extravagance, accompanied by other evils in the management of county affairs, St. 1897, c. 137, to further define the powers and duties of county commissioners, was passed. The first section amended Pub. St. c. 22, § 20, by providing, 'But no money shall be paid, or liability incurred for erecting such buildings in excess of the amount specifically authorized by the general court therefor, or except in cases of emergency, for the repairing of such buildings in excess of the amount authorized by the general court for the repairs of county buildings.' By this statute, which is now embodied in Rev. Laws, c. 20,§ 24, where the proper accommodation of the public demands that a county building should be improved, and made more convenient by extensive alterations, or enlarged by the erection of additions, so that when completed substantially a new structure has been provided, it is the duty of the commissioners before contracting for any expenditure to call the attention of the Legislature to the necessity, and ask for an appropriation, which if granted they cannot lawfully exceed. District Attorney v. County Commissioners of Bristol, 14 Gray, 138; Morse v. Norfolk County, 170 Mass. 555, 49 N.E. 925. It is conceded that under the provisions of the special acts they had not been authorized to make over the old building occupied by the registry of deeds and of probate, or to build a boiler house, and to contract for the preparation of plans as a necessary part of the work. St. 1902, c. 266; St. 1905, c. 423; St. 1905, c. 430; St. 1907, c. 151. The plaintiff rests his right of recovery upon the ground that his employment was authorized under Rev. Laws, c. 20, § 27, permitting an oral contract without competitive bids where the amount involved does not exceed $800, and as section 24 also authorizes the commissioners, 'to represent their county and to have * * * the management of its business and affairs in all cases not otherwise expressly provided for,' the defendant is liable under the second item, because one of the incidental purposes for which plans showing the proposed reconstruction were prepared, was for use at a legislative hearing in opposition to the building of a new courthouse, which in the judgment of the commissioners would impose an unnecessary expense upon the county. In each instance the plaintiff furnished the plans at the verbal request of the commissioners, although afterwards upon presentation they indorsed the bills as allowed. It may be questioned whether they could contract for the county except by a majority vote at a meeting of the board of which the members had received notice or were present, and their action recorded as required by Rev. Laws, c. 20, § 18. Reed v. Scituate, 5 Allen, 120, 124; Damon v. Selectmen of Framingham, 195 Mass. 72, 78, 80 N.E. 644. But independently of this doubt, as it does not appear that any appropriation had been provided, under section 24, with which section 27 must be read; they were not authorized to bind the county by either contract, and the ruling that the plaintiff could not recover on the second item was correct. Connors v. Stone, ubi supra. In reaching this result as to the third item, we have not overlooked the subsequent St. 1906, c. 294, providing an additional grant, for furnishing, and equipping, the new registry and probate building, and authorizing the erection and equipment of an isolated heating plant, which was, however, to be constructed subject to the provisions of St. 1905, c. 423. By section 2 of that act, authority to contract for plans having been expressly delegated to a special board, the county commissioners were deprived of any power to confirm their previous employment of the plaintiff.
We now come to the first item, over which the principal controversy arises. By St. 1902, c. 266, § 1, the county commissioners were given authority to take land by purchase, or otherwise as far as might be necessary, To meet the expenses to be incurred, section four authorized them from time to time to borrow this sum on the credit of the county, and the money was procured and placed in the treasury. At the time of its passage Rev. Laws c. 20, § 27, were in force, providing that 'all contracts * * * for building, altering, furnishing or repairing public buildings or for the construction of public works * * * shall if exceeding eight hundred dollars in amount be made in writing after notice for proposals therefor * * * has been posted in a conspicuous place in the county court house for at least one week, and has been published at least three times in a newspaper, if any, published in the city or town interested in the work contracted for, otherwise in the newspaper of the most general circulation in the county.' If this is not done, 'no contract made in violation of the provisions of this section shall be valid...
To continue reading
Request your trial