Brick v. Cnty. of Plymouth

• Decision Date: 25 April 1884
• Citation: 63 Iowa 462,19 N.W. 304
• Parties: BRICK v. COUNTY OF PLYMOUTH.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

63 Iowa 462

19 N.W. 304

BRICK

v.COUNTY OF PLYMOUTH.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed April 25, 1884.

Appeal from Plymouth circuit court.

This is an action by which the plaintiff, who is a physician, seeks to recover for medical attendance upon certain small-pox patients, which service, it is alleged, was performed by order of the board of health of the city of Le Mars. There was a trial by the court, and a judgment for the plaintiff. Defendant appeals.J. C. Kelley, for appellant.

G. W. Argo and T. P. Murphy, for appellee.

ROTHROCK, C. J.

It appears from the evidence that in February and March, 1882, certain persons were afflicted with small-pox in the city of Le Mars, and that plaintiff, at the instance of certain members of the board of health, rendered professional services to persons who were kept in a pest-house established by said board, and to others afflicted with said disease. After the service was rendered, the plaintiff prepared a bill against the county for the same to the amount of $907.50, and the said board of health approved the same, and it was presented to the board of supervisors for allowance. The board of supervisors allowed the sum of $318.50 of the bill and rejected the residue. The amount allowed was paid to the plaintiff, and this suit was brought to recover that part which was rejected.

It is claimed by counsel for appellant that the acceptance of the allowance made by the board of supervisors is a bar to an action for the balance of the bill, which was rejected by the board. The evidence shows that the board of supervisors investigated the claim, allowed a part of it, and rejected the balance upon what appears to us to be good and sufficient grounds. There is no pretense that the plaintiff, when he received the amount allowed him, did not know that the balance had been rejected. Indeed, orders of rejection were written upon the bill when it was introduced in evidence in the court below, and the plaintiff, in his testimony as a witness, did not deny that he was fully aware of the action of the board of supervisors when he received the allowance made to him. We think that under these circumstances the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. Wapello Co. v. Sinnaman, 1 G. Greene, 413. That was a case where a claim was presented against the county, and part of it was allowed and the balance rejected. The court said: “If the plaintiff in this case presented his claim for allowance, and it was in part allowed by the...