Floyd County v. Allen

• Citation: 126 S.W. 124,137 Ky. 575
• Parties: FLOYD COUNTY v. ALLEN.
• Decision Date: 16 March 1910
• Court: Court of Appeals of Kentucky

126 S.W. 124

137 Ky. 575

FLOYD COUNTY v. ALLEN.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 16, 1910

Appeal from Circuit Court, Floyd County.

"To be officially reported."

Action by S.E. Allen against Floyd County. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

A. J May, for appellant.

W. H May, for appellee.

NUNN C.J.

In the month of October, 1907, appellee presented a claim of $381.25 against Floyd county to the fiscal court of that county, and asked that it be allowed. The claim was for material and labor furnished by appellee in making a floorway, or bridge along a public highway in that county, near the mouth of Katy Friend branch. The fiscal court heard the evidence and allowed him $50 of his claim, but refused to allow the remainder. Appellee refused to accept that amount in satisfaction of his claim, and filed his suit to recover the whole amount. He does not pretend that he was ordered or directed by the fiscal court of Floyd county to make the improvement in the road at the place named, but claims that the county judge and one of the justices of the peace of the county requested him to make it, and that he, in good faith made the improvement, believing that the county judge and justice of the peace had the legal authority to contract with him with reference thereto. A trial in the circuit court resulted in a verdict in behalf of appellee for the sum of $300, credited by the $50 allowed him by the fiscal court. The county appeals from the judgment rendered upon that verdict.

Similar questions have been repeatedly presented to this court, and it has been invariably held that a county cannot be obligated to pay a debt, except when the statutes are substantially complied with in creating the obligation. The fiscal court never met or acted as a court with reference to appellee's claim before it was presented; and, when it did meet and act, it allowed him, as before stated, only $50. The testimony shows that the county judge prior to the making of the improvement went to the place improved and the home of appellee and advised and requested him to make the improvement, and that the justice of the peace in that district also requested it. It is also insisted for appellee that the county should be compelled to pay him the claim for the reason that it made no objection to the work as it progressed and it reaped the benefits of his expenditure and labor. This presents a very equitable view in his behalf, and would prevail against an individual or private corporation but the consequences would be disastrous to hold that it should apply to the state or a county. To permit the citizen to select his own time, place, and manner, even with the advice and consent of one or two of the officials, in which to furnish material and labor for needed repairs or improvements on a public highway of the county and hold the county responsible for the price charged, upon the ground that it had been benefited thereby, would be ruinous to the county and have the effect to supersede the powers of the fiscal court whose duty it is under the law to manage such affairs. The case of Perry County v. Engle, 116 Ky. 594, 76 S.W. 382, 25 Ky. Law Rep. 813, is conclusive of the case at bar. In that case the county court made an order directing a commissioner to let a contract for the improvement of a public highway. The commissioner let it to the highest and best bidder and reported his acts to the county court, and it was held his acts were void...