Freeman v. The Board of County Commissioners of Wyandotte County
| Decision Date | 01 September 1898 |
| Docket Number | 362 |
| Citation | 54 P. 294,8 Kan.App. 72 |
| Parties | WINFIELD FREEMAN v. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WYANDOTTE COUNTY |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Opinion Filed September 17, 1898.
Error from Wyandotte district court; HENRY L. ALDEN, judge. Reversed.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.
Silas Porter, and Winfield Freeman, for plaintiff in error.
Samuel C. Miller, and I. F. Bradley, for defendant in error.
This action was brought by Freeman, plaintiff in error, against the board of county commissioners of Wyandotte county, for services rendered by plaintiff in error as an attorney and counselor at law. A trial was had before the court and a jury. The plaintiff introduced his evidence and rested, and the defendant board of county commissioners interposed a demurrer to the evidence, which was sustained, the plaintiff excepting. A motion for a new trial was filed and overruled and the case is presented to this court for review.
It appears from the record that J. J. Squires commenced an action in ejectment in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Kansas against Quindaro township, in Wyandotte county, C. F. Horstman, trustee, Frank Brown, clerk, and D. Braman, treasurer, of such township, to recover the title and possession of Quindaro park. The board of county commissioners employed Freeman as attorney and counselor at law to defend the suit, and he performed the services. The board of county commissioners paid the expenses of Freeman incident to the action. Freeman presented his bill for $ 1500, payment of which was rejected by the board. He appealed to the district court, where judgment was rendered on the demurrer as before stated. Quindaro park, the subject of the litigation in the action in which the professional services were rendered, was dedicated to the public the fee of the park, however, being in Wyandotte county. The action of Squires was defeated, and this proceeding was brought to recover compensation for such services. The Squires case is reported as Quindaro Township v. Squires, 51 F. 152.
The defendant in error, in the trial court and here, contends that the suit of Squires against Quindaro township in the circuit court was one in which Quindaro township and its officers alone were interested; that the action involved a township matter and not a matter in which the county had any interest; that inasmuch as neither the board of county commissioners nor any of the county officers were parties to the action in the United States circuit court, the board of county commissioners had no right or power to employ counsel in such suit, and that the board of county commissioners in employing such counsel acted without authority, and such contract is void.
The only...
To continue reading
Request your trial