Bremer Cnty. v. Schroeder

Citation200 Iowa 1285,206 N.W. 303
Decision Date15 December 1925
Docket NumberNo. 36500.,36500.
PartiesBREMER COUNTY v. SCHROEDER.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from District Court, Bremer County; M. F. Edwards, Judge.

Action by the County to recover from a son the expense of keeping, caring for, and burying his father, an inmate of the county poorhouse. From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendant appeals. Modified and affirmed.Sager & Sweet, of Waverly, for appellant.

Dawson & Wehrmacher and H. L. Leslie, all of Waverly, for appellee.

VERMILION, J.

The action is by the appellee county to recover of appellant the amount alleged to have been expended by the county in boarding and keeping A. B. C. Schroeder, appellant's father, at the county poor farm, and in furnishing him with medical attention and burying him. It is not disputed that the father was an inmate of the county farm from December 11, 1915, to his death on March 2, 1919, or that the amounts claimed were expended by the county in keeping him at the poor farm and in securing medical attention for him and for his burial.

[1] I. It is insisted by appellant that the action is in equity, and is triable here de novo. On the contrary, the petition was entitled in law, the action was essentially an action at law for the recovery of a money judgment only, and a jury was expressly waived by the parties.

[2] II. Appellant complains that no application was made to the district court by the township trustees for an order compelling appellant to maintain his father, as provided for in sections 2218 and 2219, Code of 1897 (sections 5302, 5303, and 5304, Code of 1924). It was not necessary that appellant's liability be first fixed under these sections in order for the county to recover. Boone County v. Ruhl, 9 Iowa, 276;Hamilton County v. Hollis, 141 Iowa, 477, 119 N. W. 978.

[3][4] III. It is insisted there was no proof that those who purported to act as township trustees in removing A. B. C. Schroeder to the county poor farm were such trustees, or ever legally qualified as such. The evidence shows they were holding the office of trustee, and were acting as such with the acquiescence of the public. They were therefore at least trustees de facto. The acts of the officers de facto are as valid and effectual, where they concern the public or the rights of third persons, as though they were officers de jure, and their authority to act cannot be questioned in collateral proceedings. Stickney v. Stickney, 77 Iowa, 699, 42 N. W. 518;State v. Powell, 101 Iowa, 382, 70 N. W. 592;Metropolitan National Bank v. Bank, 104 Iowa, 682, 74 N. W. 26, and cases there cited.

[5][6] IV. It is said there was no application to the trustees for relief of A. B. C. Schroeder as a poor person, as required by section 2234, Code of 1897 (section 5328, Code of 1924). It is settled the application may be made by another than the person to be relieved. Clay County v. Palo Alto County, 82 Iowa, 626, 48 N. W. 1053; Hamilton County v. Hollis, supra. There was undisputed testimony that A. B. C. Schroeder asked one Wernicke to help him; that he could not talk the American language very well, and wanted him to go with him to see the trustees because he was freezing to death and had no wood or fire; that Wernicke so informed the trustees, and they visited appellant and his father; that, after being informed that appellant had said he wouldn't take care of the old gentleman, that he was through with him,” the father said he would have to go to the county farm. It is clear there was sufficient application by and in behalf of the father for public relief.

[7] V. It is also said there was no written order of the township trustees admitting A. B. C. Schroeder to the poorhouse, as required by section 2244, Code of 1897 (section 5343, Code of 1924), providing that:

“No person shall be admitted to the county home except upon the written order of a township trustee or member of the board of supervisors. * * *”

The steward of the poor farm might have refused to receive Schroeder as an inmate, in the absence of a written order, but, having received him, and the county having furnished him support there with full knowledge on the part of the board of supervisors, we fail to see how the fact that there was no written order for his admission in any way affects the county's right to recover from one liable for his support the amount so expended. In Collins v. Lucas County, 50 Iowa, 448, where a physician sought to recover of the county for services rendered to a pauper at the request of the trustees, and it was insisted his bill was not certified to be correct by the trustees, it was said it was competent for the board to waive the trustees' certificate, if satisfied of the truth of all that the certificate would show. In Clay County v. Palo Alto County, supra, which was an action by the county furnishing relief to recover therefor from the county of the pauper's settlement, Collins v. Lucas County, supra, was followed, and it was held such a certificate was not essential to the right to recover the reasonable costs and expenses so incurred from the county of his settlement. These authorities are in principle controlling here.

[8] The right of the county, under section 2222, Code of 1897 (section 5309, Code of 1924), is to recover any money expended for the relief or support of a poor person under the provisions of the chapter relating to the support of the poor from any of his kindred liable therefor. The question upon the county's right to recover is whether the person relieved was a poor person within the contemplation of the statute, whether the county expended money for his support, and whether the defendant is one who is made liable by statute, not whether the county might have refused relief because some requirement of the statute as to the manner in which application should be made, or the relief furnished, was not complied with. Assuming that A. B. C. Schroeder was a “poor person” under the statute, the question, as said in Polk County v. Owen, 187 Iowa, 236, 174 N. W. 99, becomes one of paymaster, Who shall maintain him, his son or the public?

[9] VI. What has been said is also applicable to the contentions that there is no record of the action of the trustees, that no notice was given the board of supervisors by the trustees of their action in sending Schroeder to the poorhouse, and that there is no record of action by the board of supervisors upon the matter. The absence of a record of the action of the trustees, authorizing relief to a pauper and warning him to return to the county of his settlement, was held in Bremer County v. Buchanan County, 61 Iowa, 624, 16 N. W. 720, to be no obstacle to a recovery by the county furnishing relief from the county where the pauper had a legal settlement. See, also, Tatlock v. Louisa County, 46 Iowa, 138, and Ferguson v. Davis County, 57 Iowa, 601, 10 N. W. 906, as to the lack of necessity for a record of the action of the board of supervisors. It clearly appears that the board of supervisors had notice that Schroeder was being cared for in the poorhouse. It was said, in Mansfield v. Sac County, 60 Iowa, 11, 14 N. W. 73:

“The only construction consistent with a humane and enlightened policy is to hold that when the trustees authorize aid to be furnished to a poor person, it may be continued, if done in good faith, until the board of supervisors otherwise order. * * *”

[10] VII. The chief contention of appellant is that his father was not a “poor person” or in destitute circumstances within the meaning of the statute. A. B. C. Schroeder was about 80 years of age at the time he was taken to the poor farm. There is no claim that he was possessed of any property, or that he was able to support himself by his own labor. But it is insisted that, prior to the removal of the father to the poor farm, appellant had supported and cared for him suitably and adequately for many years, and was willing to continue to do so; that the township trustees did not act in good faith and in the proper...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT