Bd. of Sup'rs of Arenac Cnty. v. Bd. of Sup'rs of Iosco Cnty.

• Decision Date: 04 October 1909
• Parties: BOARD OF SUP'RS OF ARENAC COUNTY v. BOARD OF SUP'RS OF IOSCO COUNTY.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

158 Mich. 344

122 N.W. 629

BOARD OF SUP'RS OF ARENAC COUNTY

v.BOARD OF SUP'RS OF IOSCO COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Oct. 4, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court, Iosco County; Main J. Connine, Judge.

Action by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Arenac against the Board of Supervisors of the County of Iosco. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed, and new trial ordered.

Argued before GRANT, MONTGOMERY, OSTRANDER, HOOKER, and MOORE, JJ. W. C. Cook, for appellant.

Jahraus & Rawden, for appellee.

HOOKER, J.

Gregory was a resident of Iosco county. He was taken ill with smallpox in Arenac county, at the village of Standish. He was placed in quarantine in temporary quarters provided for him, and a nurse and other supplies were furnished by order of the local board of health, amounting to $307.34. Among the items were stove $3, and tent $12, and these and some things listed as supplies, amounting in all to $56.79, are said to have been afterwards used for other patients who were not residents of Iosco county. The local board of health allowed all of the items, and the claims were audited by the board of supervisors, and paid by the treasurer of Arenac county. The bill so paid was presented to the board of supervisors of Iosco county on behalf of Arenac county, and was considered by said board at its regular session in January, 1904, and disallowed, whereupon this action was brought to enforce the claim. This expenditure was made in 1901 while Comp. Laws, § 4424, was in force, though Act No. 7, p. 6, Pub. Acts 1903, became operative before this action was commenced. The plaintiff has appealed.

Counsel seem to agree that the questions involved here are:

(1) Was Iosco county conclusively bound by the action of the local board of health in auditing and allowing the bills?

(2) Was it so bound by the action of the Arenac board of supervisors?

(3) Was Arenac county bound to exhaust its remedies against other parties made liable to pay by the statute before suing defendant?

(4) Was Arenac county barred from recovery under section 4424 by reason of the taking effect of Act 7, p. 6, Pub. Acts 1903, before this action was begun?

The defendant also asks that we decide: (a) Whether appellant has a valid claim for articles afterwards used for Arenac county's own residents. (b) Can recovery be had for services of nurse employed against the protests of the patient who offers to furnish his own nurse and physician?

1. Allowance by Local Board of Health. Under Comp. Laws, § 4424, the allowance of an account by the local board of health was conclusive upon the board of supervisors of the county in which the relief was afforded as to the character of the disease, the necessity and fitness of the articles and services furnished, the fact that they were furnished, and the inability of the patient to pay, and such board of supervisors had no alternative but to allow and pay the claim. Elliott v. Kalkaska Co. Sup'rs, 58 Mich. 459, 25 N. W. 461,55 Am. Rep. 706;Cedar Creek v. Wexford Co. Sup'rs, 135 Mich. 124, 97 N. W. 409;Pierce v. Gladwin Co. Sup'rs, 136 Mich. 423, 99 N. W. 1132;Sturge v. Gladwin Co. Sup'rs, 136 Mich. 425, 99 N. W. 1132;Thomas v. Ingham Co. Sup'rs, 142 Mich. 319, 320, 105 N. W. 771. We are of the opinion that this action of the local board of health is equally conclusive of these things upon Iosco county under the statute cited, and, while Arenac county was called upon to pay the certified claim in the first instance, it was only necessary upon the trial to make proof of such allowance and payment. There is a close analogy between such a case as this and the expenses of state troop in suppressing a riot. See Aud. Gen. v. Bay Co., 106 Mich. 679, 680, 64 N. W. 570, for a discussion of the principle involved. See, also, Arenac Sup'rs v. Iosco Sup'rs, 144 Mich. 54, 107 N. W. 725.

2. Allowance by Arenac Board of Supervisors. A lengthy discussion of this question is unnecessary. The action of the Arenac supervisors added nothing in the way of creating a legal liability on the part of Iosco county. At most, such action was a prerequisite to enforcement.

4. Remedy against Private Persons. This question was settled by the case of Cedar Creek v. Wexford, supra, which followed the enunication of the same rule by Mr. Justice Moore in McKillop v. Board of Supervisors, 116 Mich. 614, 74 N. W. 1050. It is true that in those cases the question was raised by the board of the county in which the relief was furnished, but we think it equally applicable in this case. Arenac was not bound to exhaust the remedy given against private persons. Under the law, it merely performed its duty of paying this bill for the use and benefit of Iosco, if, in fact, the obligation vested on Iosco by reason of the residence of the patient, which is not disputed. Act 7, p. 6, Pub. Acts 1903. Those rights vested under Comp. Laws, § 4424, and were not lost by the amendment of 1903, which should be held to be limited to cases arising thereafter.

(1) Under the rule that statutes will not be considered retroactive unless the intent that they should have retroactive effect clearly appears. Price v. Hopkin, 13 Mich. 318;Smith v. Humphrey, 20 Mich. 308;Fuller v. Grand...