Breckinridge County v. Beard

• Decision Date: 11 March 1930
• Citation: 233 Ky. 823
• Parties: Breckinridge County et al. v. Beard.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky

233 Ky. 823

Breckinridge County et al. v. Beard.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Decided March 11, 1930.

1. Evidence. — Parol evidence is not admissible to prove contents of written instrument unless it is shown that writing is lost or destroyed.

2. Evidence. — Where lost document had been delivered to and belonged in custody of plaintiff, and it was directed by the court to produce it, it was proper for defendant, on failure of plaintiff to produce document, to prove contents by parol evidence as a lost instrument.

3. Counties. — Rule that county is not bound by any action of individual members of fiscal court, but only by corporte action taken in regular session and evidenced by official record, applied only when there is an effort to impose liability on county.

4. Subscriptions. — Where county itself is seeking to recover upon a promise to make a donation, it is bound by the condition of the obligation upon which it sues.

5. Contracts. — A party who enters into a written contract may be held liable according to the terms of the agreement, but, if the agreement rests upon express conditions, performance of those conditions is an essential prerequisite to right of recovery.

6. Subscriptions. — Written subscriptions unfettered by conditions may be executed and delivered, and in that case a party is bound by the terms of the contract, and may not rely upon unauthorized representations made by others to induce subscription, but not incorporated therein.

7. Contracts. — Where several separate writings relate to the same subject-matter, they must be considered together to determine the contract between parties.

8. Subscripions. — Where notes were executed pursuant to written subscription for purpose of constructing a public road on condition that road would be completed within three years and of waterbound macadam construction, the county, on failure to comply with terms of contract, was without right to recover on notes, in that the notes did not supersede written subscription, but were given merely to carry out terms of that writing which was the sole foundation of obligation.

9. Subscriptions. — Obligation to county on notes executed in accordance with subscription requiring construction of public road of specified material was not affected by reason of transfer of power to build roads to another governmental agency which took benefits of the obligation subject to same conditions on which it was given to county.

Appeal from Breckinridge Circuit Court.

H.L. JAMES and JESSE R. ESKRIDGE for appellants.

MOORMAN, WALLS & BEARD, ALLEN R. KINCHELOE, P.M. BASHAM, ERNEST WOODWARD and WOODWARD, HAMILTON & HOBSON for appellee.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUDGE WILLIS

Affirming.

Breckinridge county sued M.D. Beard upon two notes for $1,666.66 each. The answer interposed a defense to the effect that the notes were executed pursuant to a written subscription by which the defendant had agreed to donate $5,000 to the county for the purpose of constructing a public road upon condition that the road should be completed within three years from the time of the subscription, and that it should be of water-bound macadam construction. No such road was built within the three years, or at all, and the gravel road which was ultimately constructed was not built until 1927. The written contract of subscription also contained an agreement that notes might be given making the donation payable in three equal installments, due in one, two and three years. Upon motion of defendant, a rule was issued against the county to produce the written contract of subscription which had been delivered to it, and was last seen in the custody of an officer of the county. In response to the rule, the county answered that it was unable to produce the writing. The contents of the writing, however, were proven to have been in accordance with the pleading of defendant. The case was submitted to the court without the intervention of a jury, and a separate finding of law and facts was made. It was found as a fact that defendant had made a written subscription to the road which contained the conditions that the road was to be completed within three years, and was to be of water-bound macadam, or better, surface. It was further found as a fact that the subscription contract provided that notes might be given payable in one, two, and three years, and that the notes sued on were two of the notes executed by the defendant in pursuance of the subscription; that Breckinridge county and the fiscal court had notice of the terms and conditions of the subscription; that the Bank of Hardinsburg & Trust Company was the payee in the note and was the authorized and acting agent of the county for that purpose; that the notes were executed and delivered with the understanding and agreement that the conditions of the subscription should be carried out; and that the road was not completed either actually or substantially in conformity to the conditions. The court concluded as a matter of law that the subscription was merely an offer until accepted, which might be legally burdened with any conditions desired by the subscriber, and, when the county accepted the offer, it accepted the conditions coupled with it, and could not recover upon the notes without complying with the conditions. Judgment was entered accordingly dismissing the action and the county has prosecuted an appeal.

It is first argued that parol evidence is not admissible to prove the contents of a written instrument unless it is shown that the writing is lost or destroyed. The contention is correct. Elkhorn Land & Imp. Co. v. Wallace, 232 Ky. 726 24 S.W. (2d) 560, decided February 4, 1930. But in this case the lost document had been delivered to, and belonged in the custody of, the plaintiff, and it was directed by the court to produce it. Under such circumstances it was proper to prove the contents of the document as a lost instrument. Mussellan v. C., N.O. & T.P. Ry. Co., 126 Ky. 500, 104 S.W. 337, 31 Ky. Law Rep. 908; Muir v. Glossbrenner Motors Co., 211 Ky. 1, 276 S.W. 1058.

It is argued also that the county is not bound by any action of the individual members of the fiscal court, but only by corporate action taken in regular sessions and evidenced by official record. McDonald...