Bentley v. Board of County Comm'rs of Chisago County
| Decision Date | 20 September 1878 |
| Citation | 25 Minn. 259 |
| Parties | William A. Bentley v. Board of County Commissioners of Chisago County |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action to recover for services rendered by plaintiff as a physician in attending certain poor persons, at their residences in Chisago county. At the trial in the district court for that county, before Crosby, J., the plaintiff, under objection and exception by defendant, proved that in each case the services for which he seeks to recover were rendered on the written request of one of the board of commissioners of the defendant county. No other evidence of employment of plaintiff by defendant was offered. The defendant offered to prove that at the time such services were rendered, another person was the regularly appointed and acting county physician of the defendant. The evidence was excluded, on plaintiff's objection, and the defendant excepted. The defendant requested the court to instruct the jury that the defendant incurred no liability for the services rendered by the plaintiff under such requests from individual commissioners which was refused, and the defendant excepted. The jury found for the plaintiff, a new trial was refused, and the defendant appealed.
Order reversed.
H. N Setzer, for appellant.
McCluer & Marsh, for respondent.
The exceptions taken in this case raise the question whether, under Gen. St. c. 15, a single county commissioner has authority to employ a physician, other than the county physician, for a sick pauper who has a legal settlement in the county, and is entitled to public relief, and to bind the county for the payment of a reasonable compensation for the medical and professional services rendered under such employment.
We are referred to sections three and five of this chapter, as containing the requisite authority. The former has no reference whatever to any of the duties or powers of the county commissioners, whether acting together as a board, or separately and singly as independent officers. It simply declares when, and under what circumstances, paupers shall become a charge upon the county, and how their maintenance and support shall be borne and provided for out of the county treasury. Section five enacts that the county commissioners shall, by virtue of their office, be superintendents of the poor of their respective counties, and that they shall take charge of the poor supported at public expense therein, and have the management of any poor-house, farm, work-house, or other place provided for the accommodation, support, or employment of the poor therein. The duty enjoined by this section is a joint one, requiring in its performance the action of the county commissioners as a board, and the same is true as to the authority which it confers. No single commissioner can take upon himself alone the separate charge of the county poor, nor the separate management of...
To continue reading
Request your trial