Corker v. Commissioners of Elmore County
| Decision Date | 27 June 1904 |
| Citation | 10 Idaho 255,77 P. 633 |
| Parties | CORKER v. COMMISSIONERS OF ELMORE COUNTY |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
ROAD DISTRICT CONTRACTS-CONTRACTOR-POWER OF COMMISSIONERS TO RELEASE CONTRACTOR.
1. A board of county commissioners has neither express nor implied power to accept the resignation of a bidder to whom they have duly and regularly awarded a contract under section 875 Revised Statutes (Sess. Laws 1899, p. 129), for the care keeping and repair of the roads of a contract road district.
2. It is to the interest of the county that such contracts be enforced. On the other hand, it is against the interest of the county for contractors to be released and relieved from their obligations.
(Syllabus by the court.)
APPEAL from District Court in and for Elmore County. Honorable Lyttleton Price, Judge.
From a judgment of the district court approving and affirming an order of the board of county commissioners, a citizen and taxpayer appeals. Reversed.
Order and judgment of the district court reversed and vacated and cause remanded, with direction. Costs awarded to appellant.
W. C Howie, for Appellant.
That the board has no powers but those directly conferred on it by statute and can act only in the manner laid down by statute has often been held by this court. (Gorman v. County Commissioners, 1 Idaho 553, 556, 557; Conger v Board of Commrs., 5 Idaho 347, 48 P. 1064, and many other cases.) And having exhausted their power by acting in the manner and to the extent as provided by law, they have no power afterward to set aside, annul or modify their action. (7 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 1008, and notes; Cowell v. Martin, 43 Cal. 605; Harris v. Board, 49 Cal. 662; Sturgeon v. Hampton, 88 Mo. 203 (212-214); Board of County Commrs. v. Logansport & R. C. R. R., 88 Ind. 199; Doctor v. Hartman, 74 Ind. 221; People v. Supervisors of Schenectady Co., 35 Barb. 408; Dorsey v. Barry, 24 Cal. 449.)
Daniel McLaughlin, for Respondent, files no brief.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
On the nineteenth day of July, 1902, the board of commissioners of Elmore county duly and regularly let the contract to W. H Davis for the keeping of the roads of contract road district No. 4 of Elmore county, in good repair as provided by law for the term of two years from and after the twenty-ninth day of July, 1902. After the execution of the contract, and on the twenty-fifth day of July, the contractor made, executed and delivered to the board of commissioners his bond in due form conditioned for the faithful performance of his contract. At the July, 1903, meeting of the board of commissioners, the contractor, Davis, filed his written resignation as such contractor and asked the board to relieve him from his contract and discharge him from all liability thereon. The matter came on regularly for hearing on the twenty-first day of July, and, so far as the record shows, no evidence whatever was taken or heard by the board in the consideration of such resignation and application for discharge, and by a vote of two ayes and one nay, the board made and entered its order accepting the resignation. From the order so made and entered the appellant, C. E. Corker, a resident and taxpayer of Elmore county and road district No. 4 thereof, appealed to the district court. When the cause was called for trial in the district court, the appellant introduced the record of the proceedings of the board of commissioners in accepting the resignation, the contract entered into between the board and the contractor, and the bond given for the faithful performance of the terms of the contract. Thereupon the appellant offered to prove by his own testimony that the contractor had entirely failed to keep the roads of his district in repair and had neglected and failed to do any work thereon; that he had not lived up to the terms of his contract and had not complied with the requirements of law as to the duties of such contractor, and that by reason of his neglect to work and repair the roads and keep them in fair condition they had become impassable, and that at the time the board accepted his resignation it would have cost the county at least double the amount of the contract price to put the roads in a reasonable state of repair and condition for travel. After an extended statement by counsel for appellant as to the nature and character of the evidence he proposed to introduce by the witness, the court ruled upon the offer as follows: "The proffer of proof made by Mr. Howie is denied, for the reason that the court thinks it does not show an abuse of discretion on the part of the board in agreeing to terminate the contract in question; but that in that act they exercised a discretionary power which the law vests in them, and as far as the court can see, their act does not involve any abuse of that discretion, and for that reason the offer is denied." To this ruling appellant excepted and thereupon rested his case. No evidence was introduced by the respondents and the court rendered and entered his judgment approving and affirming the action of the board of commissioners. From this judgment the appellant has prosecuted this appeal. No appearance was made on the part of the respondents at the hearing in this court, but since that a brief has been filed by the county attorney on behalf of the board of commissioners. We have made a very careful examination of this question independent of the citations and authorities presented, in order to find, if possible, some authority directly in point, but our research has not been rewarded with any covering a similar state of facts. The authority for entering into such contracts as the one executed by the board in this case is found in sections 875, 876, 877, 878 and 879, as enacted and added to the Revised Statutes by act of February 7, 1899 (Sess. Laws 1899, pp. 127-132). Section 875 authorizes the execution of such a contract and provides that it shall not be entered into for a period "less than two, nor more than three years for the respective contract road districts." Section 876 prescribes the duties of such contractor in reference to keeping roads, bridges, etc., in good repair. Section 877 contains the only power and authority found in the statute for the board of commissioners enforcing the terms of...
To continue reading
Request your trial