Bradley v. Del. Cnty.
| Decision Date | 19 December 1881 |
| Citation | 57 Iowa 552,10 N.W. 898 |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
| Parties | BRADLEY & SHERMAN v. DELAWARE COUNTY. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Delaware district court.
Action upon an account. The plaintiffs are physicians, and as such they furnished medicine and medical attendance, at the written request of the trustees of Delaware township, in Delaware county, for certain paupers of the county. The claims as presented to the board of supervisors amounted to $195.05. The board allowed thereon the sum of $114.55, and refused to allow the balance. The action is brought to recover such balance. The defendant for answer averred, among other things, that the plaintiffs' account was not certified to by the township trustees. The plaintiffs did not controvert the fact of the want of such certificate, but claimed that the board of supervisors waived the certificate. The court instructed the jury in substance that an allowance of a part of the plaintiffs' account, without objection for want of certificate, would be a waiver of the certificate. A verdict and judgment were rendered for plaintiffs. The defendant appeals.Calvin Yoran and E. M. Carr, for appellant.
Bronson & Le Roy, for appellees.
The cause, involving less than $100, comes to us upon a certificate. The question certified is as follows: “Where claims are filed before the board of supervisors of a county for medical attendance upon and care for the poor, on the order of the proper township trustees, which said claims are not certified to be correct by the trustees, but which claims the board of supervisors consider without objection for want of such certificate, and allow a part and disallow a part, does such action amount to a waiver of such certificate, estopping the county from setting up and establishing the want of such certificate as a defence in a suit brought for the balance of said claims?” The defendant insists, in the first place, that the board of supervisors had no power to waive the certificate. In support of this doctrine the defendant cites Hull v. County of Marshall, 12 Iowa, 154; Webster County v. Taylor, 19 Iowa, 117; and Clarke v. City of Des Moines, 19 Iowa, 219. It is not necessary for the purposes of this case to go into an extended review of the cases cited. An examination of them will show that they differ materially from the case at bar. That a county, through its proper officers, may allow and pay a claim of the nature of the plaintiffs', is, of course, disputed by no one. The objection made is simply to the mode of allowance. This consideration alone is sufficient to show the inapplicability of the cases cited. On the other hand, the defendant's position, that the board of supervisors has no power to waive the township trustees' certificate, is in conflict with Armstrong v. Tama County, 34 Iowa, 314, and Collins v. Lucas County, 58 Iowa, 488. In the former case, it is true, no more was allowed by the court of the uncertified claim than was allowed by the board; but this court held that, to the extent of the allowance, the county was estopped to deny the claim. This ruling could have been made only upon the theory that the allowance was not without jurisdiction, and that, to the extent of the allowance, the board had power to waive and did waive the certificate.
It being settled, then, that the board has power to waive the certificate, we have only to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Rawlins v. Jungquist
...41 P. 592; Wapello Co. v. Sinnamon, 1 G. Greene, 413; Fulton v. Monona Co., 47 Iowa 622; Brick v. Plymouth Co., 63 Iowa 463; Bradley v. Delaware Co., 57 Iowa 552; U. S. v. Adams, 7 Wall., 463; U. S. Child, 12 Wall., 232; Davey v. Big Rapids, 48 N.W. 178; Browne v. Board (Mich.), 85 N.W. 745......
- Bradley v. Delaware County