Bd. of Com'Rs of Logan Cnty. v. State ex rel. Short

• Decision Date: 15 February 1927
• Docket Number: Case Number: 17411
• Citation: 122 Okla. 268,1927 OK 40,254 P. 710
• Parties: BOARD OF COM'RS OF LOGAN COUNTY v. STATE ex rel. SHORT, Atty. Gen.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1927 OK 40

254 P. 710

122 Okla. 268

BOARD OF COM'RS OF LOGAN COUNTY v. STATE ex rel. SHORT, Atty. Gen.

Case Number: 17411

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: February 15, 1927

Syllabus

¶0 1. Counties--Validity of Claims Against--Necessity for Statutory Authority. One who demands payment of a claim against a county must show some statute authorizing it, or that it arises from some contract, expressed or implied, which finds authority of law.

2. States--Educational, Penal, and Other Institutions for Public Good Made State Charge by Constitution. Under article 21 of the Constitution of Oklahoma, educational, reformatory, and penal institutions and those for the benefit of insane, blind, deaf and mute, and such other institutions as the public good may require, shall be established and supported by the state.

3.Paupers--Counties Charged with Support. Section 3, article 17, of the Constitution of Oklahoma requires the counties to provide for those inhabitants who, by reason of age, infirmity or misfortune, may have claims upon the sympathy and aid of the county.

4. Constitutional Law--Distinct Policies Affirmed in Constitution not subject to Change by Legislature. The affirmation of a distinct policy upon any specific point in a state Constitution implies the negation of any power in the Legislature to establish a different policy.

5. Counties--Unconstitutionality of Statute Imposing Upon Counties the Expense of Patients in State Hospitals for Insane. Chapter 75, article 6, C. O. S., 1921, as amended by chapter 70, Session Laws, 1925, in so far as it imposes the expenses of maintaining public patients in the state hospitals for the insane on the county of commitment or residence, is in conflict with article 21 of the Constitution of Oklahoma, and void.

George W. Partridge, County Attorney of Logan County, for plaintiff in error.

George F. Short, Atty. Gen., and Chas. Hill Johns, for defendant in error.

MASON, V. C. J.

¶1 The Legislature, in 1917, passed an act known as the "Lunacy Law of 1917", which appears as chapter 75, article 6, C. O. S. 1921 (section 8280 to 8325, inclusive), relating to the admission of the insane to the state hospitals and providing for the charges for the care and maintenance of such patients to be paid, in certain instances, by the county in which such patients may reside. Section 8291, supra, outlines the procedure for having one adjudged insane and incarcerated in one of the state hospitals. It also provides that patients be classified as public or private patients, and further provides:

"In case the admission of such insane person be ordered as a public patient, then the county in which such person is a resident shall be liable to the state for the support of such patient. * * *"

¶2 Section 8295, supra, among other things, provides that at the time of such hearing a guardian be appointed for such insane as have property, and that the county be reimbursed from the patient's estate for certain portions of his expenses in said institution. Section 8296, supra, makes the county from which such public patient comes liable to the state for a certain portion of the expense of keeping him in such institution and authorizes and provides a method for the county to be reimbursed by the relatives of such insane in certain cases. Said section was amended by chapter 70, Session Laws 1925.

¶3 This action was begun by the defendants in error against the board of county commissioners of Logan County to recover cost and charges incurred by the confinement in Central State Hospital for the Insane at Norof 97 persons who have been adjudged public patients and who reside in said county and whose estates and relatives, and they themselves had not the financial ability to pay their expenses. The defendant demurred to the petition, which was overruled, and the defendant then filed an unverified answer denying the allegations of the plaintiff's petition, after which the court sustained plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings and rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for $ 27,090.92. Motion for new trial was presented and overruled, and the defendant appeals.

¶4 Many assignments of error are urged, but the only question we deem it necessary to decide is whether or not Logan county is liable for the care and maintenance of public patients incarcerated in said hospital upon a commitment of the county court of said county as public patients." The law is well established in this jurisdiction that one who demands payment of a claim against a county must show some statute authorizing it, or that it arises from some contract, expressed or implied, which finds authority of law; and it is not sufficient that the services preformed for which payment was demanded are beneficial. Board of Com'rs of Washita County v. Brett, 32 Okla. 853, 124 P. 57; Welker v. Annett, 44 Okla. 520, 145 P. 411; Board of County Com'rs of Noble County v. Whitney, 73 Okla. 160, 175 P. 112.

¶5 Under chapter 75, article 6, supra, as amended by chapter 70, Session Laws 1925, the county was liable, unless, as contended for by plaintiff in error, said legislative provisions are in conflict with the Constitution. When an act of the Legislature is assailed as unconstitutional, the objector assumes the burden of showing either that it is an exercise of authority not legislative in its nature, or that it is inconsistent with some provision of the federal or state Constitutions, and all presumptions are in favor of legislative enactments.

¶6 Article 21 of the state Constitution reads as follows:

"Educational, reformatory, and penal institutions, and those for the benefit of the insane, blind, deaf, and mute. and such other institutions as the public good may require, shall be established and supported by the state in such manner as may be prescribed by law."

¶7 The nature of the legislative enactments under consideration is plain. They attempt to place the cost of supporting and maintaining the insane on the respective counties. If the state has a duty of "supporting" hospitals for the insane, this, in our opinion, would include the cost of supporting the inmates thereof.

¶8 The word "support" is defined in 37 Cyc. 608, as follows:

" * * * As a verb, to bear, by being under; to sustain; to supply with funds for the means of continuing. * * *"

"Support," according to Webster's New International Dictionary, means to sustain; to furnish with funds or means for maintenance; to maintain; to provide for; as, to support a family; to enable to continue; to carry on.

¶9 The mandatory provisions of the Constitution of this state are that such hospitals for the insane shall be "established and supported by the state." This is what the people in adopting our Constitution, have said that the state shall do, and this, in our opinion, is exactly what the Legislature has undertaken to say the counties shall, and the state shall not do. This being so, the act is undoubtedly void. The Constitution, of course, does not expressly inhibit the power the Legislature has assumed to exercise, but an express inhibition is not necessary. The affirmation of a distinct policy upon any specific point in a state Constitution implies the negation of any power in the Legislature to establish a different policy. The...