Castle v. Bannock County
Decision Date | 10 December 1901 |
Citation | 8 Idaho 124,67 P. 35 |
Parties | CASTLE v. BANNOCK COUNTY |
Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
EMPLOYMENT OF PHYSICIAN BY COUNTY-INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF BOARD NOT AUTHORIZED.-An individual member of the board of county commissioners cannot employ a physician to care for smallpox patients at expense of the county.
(Syllabus by the court.)
APPEAL from District Court, Bannock County.
Judgment reversed, with costs to appellant.
Attorney General Frank Martin, for Appellant.
Boards of county commissioners are entireties and can only act collectively and as empowered by law. (Rankin v Jauman, 4 Idaho 394, 39 P. 1111; Conger v Commissioners, 5 Idaho 347, 48 P. 1064.)
W. T Reeves and Hawley & Puckett, for Respondent.
Our claim is that this bill of respondent was created under the provisions of section 1150 to 1153 inclusive, and that being a part of the expense of the board of health as a majority of the officers who under the law constitute the board, the same became and is a charge against Bannock county, and should be paid as provided under section 1154 of the Revised Statutes of Idaho. (Elliott v. Kalkaska Supervisors, 58 Mich. 452, 55 Am. Rep. 707 et seq.; Labrie v. Manchester, 59 N.H. 120, 47 Am. Rep. 179 et seq.; Commissioners of Tippecanoe Co. v. Mitchell, 131 Ind. 370, 30 N.E. 409; Evans v. City, 24 N.J.L. 764; Detroit v. Redfield, 19 Mich. 376; McBride v. Grand Rapids, 47 Mich. 236, 10 N.W. 353; United States v. Brindle, 110 U.S. 688, 4 S.Ct. 180; State v. Hauset, 63 Ind. 155; Vanardsdall v. State, 65 Ind. 176; Crow v. Board, 118 Ind. 51, 20 N.E. 642; Board v. Bunting, 111 Ind. 144, 12 N.E. 151; Shannon v. O'Boyle, 51 Ind. 565; Board v. Saunders, 17 Ind. 437; State v. Clark, 4 Ind. 315; Hoffman v. Board, 96 Ind. 84; Garrett v. Board, 92 Ind. 518; Boggs v. Caldwell, 28 Mo. 586.)
On the eleventh day of January, 1901, respondent presented his bill to the board of county commissioners of Bannock county for the sum of $ 330.60. On the twenty-sixth day of January, 1901, the board of county commissioners passed upon said bill, allowing respondent sixty dollars and sixty cents, and disallowing the balance in the sum of $ 270. Respondent appealed to the district court of said county. On the fifteenth day of March, 1901, findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed, and on the same day judgment was entered reversing the action of the board of county commissioners of said county. From this judgment appellant appeals to this court, and assigns errors: 1. In finding, as a matter of fact, that Frank M. Watson was, in April, 1900, purchasing agent of Bannock county, under the order of the board of county commissioners made and entered January 14, 1898; 2. Error in holding that the claim disallowed by the board of county commissioners was a legal and proper charge against Bannock county; 3. In reversing the action of the board of county commissioners and ordering judgment for respondent. The record discloses the following facts: On the eighteenth day of January, 1897, the board of county commissioners of Bannock county entered into a contract with respondent, to wit:
No other contract appears in the record, and the trial court finds that it is the only written contract ever entered into between the county commissioners and respondent. On January 11, 1898, the board of county commissioners caused to be entered in their minutes the following entry: The record does not disclose that any such contract was ever entered into, and the trial court finds that no such contract was ever made. By the record it is shown that Dr. H. A. Castle, respondent, continued to perform the duties of county physician for Bannock county from the time he entered into the contract to the close of and including the year 1890, presenting his bills to the county, as provided for in the contract, and the county, through its legally authorized agents, the board of county commissioners, paying them as provided for in said contract. On the fourteenth day of January, 1898, the board of county commissioners made and caused to be entered the following order in their minutes: "In the matter of appointing a purchasing agent for the county: It appearing to the board that in the interim between the regular sessions of the board certain contingent expenses must be incurred, and certain supplies purchased for the use of the county, it is hereby ordered that the chairman of the board, Frank M. Watson, Esq., be, and he is hereby, appointed purchasing agent for the county during such interim between sessions for the year 1898, and until the further order of the board, and whenever anything is purchased or ordered the said chairman, as such purchasing agent, shall make an order in writing for the same, and in all cases said order shall be attached to the bill or claim for such supplies so ordered, and be returned to the board when the bill or claim shall be presented for allowance." Prior to the month of February, 1900, smallpox broke out in said county, there being cases in Pocatello and elsewhere in the county. The board of county commissioners met in regular sessions in April, July, and October, but no attempt was made to organize a board of health, and none was organized in the year 1890.
The court finds that in the month of April, 1900. Frank M Watson, who was chairman of the board of county commissioners and purchasing agent for the county, instructed Dr. Castle to look after smallpox patients, and told him that the county would pay him for such services. The ninth finding is that some time in April, 1900, Frank M. Watson, who was at the time chairman of the board of county commissioners and purchasing agent under the order of the board, mentioned in finding 6, instructed H. A. Castle to look after smallpox patients in the county, and that the board would pay for the services, and some time in the month of November Frank...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
H. J. McNeel, Inc. v. Canyon County
...is this a case where the contract declared upon was made by an officer having no authority to contract for the county. Castle v. Bannock County, 8 Idaho 124, 67 P. 35; Tate v. Johnson, 32 Idaho 251, 181 P. 523; Clayton v. Barnes, 52 Idaho 418, 16 P.2d 1056; Magoon v. Board of Com'rs, 58 Ida......
-
Rolette State Bank, a Corp. v. Rolette County, a Body Corporate
... ... Dakota County, 21 Minn. 33; Bentley ... v. Chicago County, 25 Minn. 259; Miller v ... Smith, 7 Idaho 204, 61 P. [56 N.D. 577] 84; Castle ... v. Bannock County, 8 Idaho 124, 67 P. 35; Williams ... v. Broadwater County, 28 Mont. 360, 72 P. 755. In ... Williams v. Broadwater County, ... ...
-
Ewin v. Independent School Distrtuct No. 8
... ... Board of Trustees of School Dis- [10 Idaho 103] trict No. 8, ... in and for the County of Shoshone, State of Idaho," it ... is held to be a sufficient compliance with section 34 of the ... 5 Idaho 347, 48 P. 1064; Dunbar v. Board of Commrs., ... 5 Idaho 407, 49 P. 409; Castle v. Bannock County, 8 ... Idaho 124, 67 P. 35; Thomas Kane & Co. v. School Dist ... No. 112 of ... ...