Bunch v. Bd. of Cnty. Com'Rs of Grant Cnty.
| Decision Date | 16 September 1924 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 13186 |
| Parties | BUNCH v. BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS OF GRANT COUNTY. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Officers--Abandonment of Office by Public Officer--Question of Fact.
A public officer may, and can voluntarily abandon and relinquish his office. Whether he intended to do so, or has done so, is a question of fact for the jury.
2. Same--Sufficiency of Evidence.
In order to support the verdict of the jury or judgment of the court in favor of the abandonment of the office, the testimony must reasonably and clearly support the verdict or judgment.
3. Appeal and Error--Questions of Fact--Verdict.
In the submission of an issue of fact to the jury, in the trial of law actions, if there is any competent testimony to support the verdict of the jury, it will not be reversed on appeal.
4. Sufficiency of Evidence.
Record examined; held, that the testimony is sufficiently clear to support the verdict of the jury.
Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 4.
Error from District Court, Grant County; J. E. Curran, Special Judge.
Action by R. O. Bunch to recover two months' salary as Court Clerk of Grant County. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
W. H. C. Taylor and J. E. Falkenberg, for plaintiff in error.
George F. Short, Arty. Gen., and Kathryn Van Leuven, Asst. Atty Gen., for defendant in error.
¶1 R. O. Bunch qualified as the duty elected and acting court clerk of Grant county, commencing January, 1919. It was claimed by the county that a shortage had occurred in the accounts of the court clerk, and an audit was commenced of his accounts the 1st of October, 1920. A shortage of a total of $ 4,600 was found in the accounts, and suit followed on his official bond A compromise and settlement of this action was had between the county and the surety company. It appears that the court clerk left his office and did not perform any official duties during the months of October and November, and during the time a check was being made of the accounts. The duties of the office were performed by a deputy court clerk. The plaintiff filed his formal resignation with the board of county commissioners in the first days of December, 1920. Thereafter the plaintiff filed his claim for two months salary with the county commissioners, who refused to allow the claim, and the plaintiff appealed from the action of the board to the district court. The plaintiff had purchased a restaurant business in the state of Nebraska, and was there conducting or looking after the same when he was arrested and returned to the state to answer for the shortage in his accounts. The plaintiff left Oklahoma and went to Nebraska about the first of October. The county first filed its answer setting up a counter-claim and farther alleging that the plaintiff did not perform any official duties during the two months for which the salary was claimed, and that the county was not liable. The court found that the evidence was insufficient to send the question of counterclaim to the jury. At the close of the testimony, the defendant asked leave to amend its answer, alleging that the defendant had abandoned his office for the two months in question, and for that reason he was not entitled to recovery. The court allowed the amendment and the issue of abandonment and the right of...
To continue reading
Request your trial