Garrity v. Board of County Commissioners of Owyhee County

• Decision Date: 23 April 1934
• Docket Number: 6086
• Citation: 54 Idaho 342,34 P.2d 949
• Parties: EARL E. GARRITY et al., Appellants, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF OWYHEE COUNTY, IDAHO, Respondent
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

34 P.2d 949

54 Idaho 342

EARL E. GARRITY et al., Appellants, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF OWYHEE COUNTY, IDAHO, Respondent

No. 6086

Supreme Court of Idaho

April 23, 1934

COUNTIES - EXPENSES - PAYMENT - LIMITATIONS-BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS-LIABILITIES.

1. Warrant redemption fund of county may not be used to pay necessary and ordinary expenses of county government (I. C A., secs. 61-801, 61-807; Const., art. 7, sec. 15).

2. Statute providing for liability of county officials for issuance of orders, or warrants, or approval of bills or orders for warrants in excess of levies, held not invalid as in conflict with constitutional limitation on county indebtedness containing proviso that limitation shall not apply to ordinary and general expenses authorized by general law (I. C. A., sec. 30-1517; Const., art. 8, sec. 3).

3. Statute providing for liability of county officials for issuance of orders or warrants or approval of bills or orders for warrants in excess of levies held not repealed by county budget statute providing for budget appropriations, levies sufficient to raise required revenues and providing that expenditures, liabilities, or warrants issued in excess of budget appropriations shall be borne by county official involved and not by county (I. C. A., secs. 30-1201 to 30-1213, 30-1517).

4. Court should not pass on constitutional or other questions not necessary to a decision.

5. Whether appeal lies from order fixing county's final budget held not to affect county commissioners' personal liability for allowance of claims for expenses, and drawing of warrant therefor on proper fund in excess of levy made for such fund (I. C. A., secs. 30-1108, 30-1517).

6. County commissioners may not, without personal liability and liability on their bonds, allow claims for expenses of any kind incurred by their predecessors in excess of funds levied therefor plus accrued revenues, or order warrants to be drawn therefor (I. C. A., sec. 30-1517).

APPEAL from the District Court of the Third Judicial District of the State of Idaho, for Owyhee County. Hon. Charles F. Koelsch District Judge.

Appeal from judgment of the district court of Owyhee county affirming an order of the Board of County Commissioners of that county disallowing claims of appellants and refusing to order warrants to be drawn therefor. Affirmed.

Judgment of the trial court affirmed, with costs to respondent. Petition for rehearing denied.

William Healy, for Appellants.

Express constitutional inhibitions against incurred indebtedness by counties are usually held not to apply to ordinary and necessary expenses or to those authorized by law. (Rauch v. Chapman, 16 Wash. 568, 48 P. 253, 58 Am. St. 52, 36 L. R. A. 407; Patterson v. Edmonds, 72 Wash. 88, 129 P. 895; Lewis v. Widber, 99 Cal. 412, 33 P. 1128.)

L. N Smith and Oppenheim & Lampert, for Respondent.

Ordinary and necessary expenses of government in excess of revenues are inhibited by sec. 30-1517, I. C. A.; extraordinary expenditures, unless approved by vote of the electorate, are inhibited by Const., art. 8, sec. 3. (Lloyd Corp. v. Bannock Co., 53 Idaho 478, 25 P.2d 217.)

Richards & Haga, as Amici Curiae.

HOLDEN, J. Budge, C. J., and Givens, Morgan and Wernette, JJ., concur.

OPINION

HOLDEN, J.

On the second Monday of January, 1932, the Board of County Commissioners of Owyhee county convened to and considered the preliminary budget of that county for the fiscal year commencing on that day, submitted to the board by the budget officer of the county, and agreed upon a tentative amount to be allowed and appropriated for the then current fiscal year to each office, department, service, agency and institution. Notice of the preliminary budget and amount so tentatively appropriated was published stating that the board would meet on the second Monday of February, next succeeding, for the purpose of considering and fixing a final budget and making appropriations to each office, department, service, agency and institution for the then current fiscal year, at which time any tax-payer might appear and be heard upon any part or parts of the tentative budget. The board met on the second Monday of February and, apparently without objection, fixed and determined the amount of the budget for each office, department, service, agency and institution of the county for the then current fiscal year, and by resolution adopted the budget so finally fixed and agreed upon.

For the current expense fund for the fiscal year commencing on the second Monday of January, 1932, the board budgeted $ 87,821.50, and for the road and bridge fund it budgeted $ 23,700, and for the warrant redemption fund, the sum of $ 38,048.02.

The assessed valuation of real and personal property in the county, subject to taxation for the fiscal year, amounted to $ 3,804,756. The total possible revenue from the tax levy made on the second Monday of September, 1932, for the current expense fund was, $ 22,828.62, and the total possible revenue from the tax levy made for the road and bridge fund was $ 11,413.81. During the then fiscal year revenues accrued to the current expense fund, from sources other than taxes, in the sum of $ 4,762.76, giving that fund a possible total of $ 27,591.38, and revenues also accrued to the road and bridge fund, from sources other than taxes, in the sum of $ 529.22, giving that fund a possible total of $ 11,943.03. The board authorized the issuance of and warrants were drawn upon the current expense fund, during the said fiscal year, amounting to $ 60,846.44, and it also authorized the issuance of and warrants were drawn upon the road and bridge fund, amounting to $ 13,390.24.

During the last quarter of the fiscal year ending on the second Monday of January, 1933, certain ordinary expenses of county officers necessary to the discharge of their duties, and ordinary expenses necessary for the support and burial of indigents, and ordinary and necessary expenses for election and other supplies, and miscellaneous expenses in the conduct of the county government, were incurred against the current expense fund, over and above the expenses for which warrants were issued, amounting to the sum of $ 2,921.93, also certain ordinary and necessary expenses for labor and material for the upkeep and maintenance of roads and bridges, were incurred against the road and bridge fund, over and above the expenses for which warrants were issued, amounting to the sum of $ 933.47, as well as a premium for compensation insurance covering county employees, amounting to the sum of $ 230.55.

On the second Monday of January, 1933, the board under whose administration the said expenses were incurred, was succeeded by a new board. Claims for such expenses, including the claim of the State Insurance Fund for said premium, were presented to the new board for allowance, and disallowed, "being advised by the Prosecuting Attorney, that if they (the members of the new board) ordered warrants drawn in payment of said claims, they would be personally liable on their personal bonds for all of said warrants drawn, for the reason, that there was not enough revenue accrued to said funds, as provided by statute, in payment of same."

The claims so disallowed by the new board, added to what had already been expended during the fiscal year 1932, would not have been in excess of the budget appropriations for the current expense and road and bridge funds, for such fiscal year, but were in excess of the total revenues of said funds which could reasonably have been anticipated.

The claimants, appellants here, and the State Insurance Fund, whose claim for said compensation insurance premium was also disallowed by the board, prosecuted separate appeals to the district court for Owyhee county, from the order of the board disallowing all of the claims, it being stipulated by all of the parties to both appeals that the appeal of the State Insurance Fund should take the same course in the district court and be determined in accordance with the judgment of that court in the appeal of Garrity and others, appellants herein. That court held in the appeal of this case, that the board could not lawfully have allowed the said claims or ordered warrants drawn in payment of the same, under section 30-1517, I. C. A., and entered judgment affirming the order of the board, and accordingly and under said stipulation, also entered judgment in the appeal of the State Insurance Fund, affirming the order of the board disallowing its claim for the said sum of $ 230.55. From such judgments separate appeals by Garrity and others, appellants herein, and the State Insurance Fund, were taken to this court, it being stipulated that the appeal in the companion case of the State Insurance Fund, be submitted on the record and briefs in this case.

Appellants specify and rely upon the following alleged errors for a reversal of the judgment of the trial court:

"1. The court erred in affirming the order of the Board disallowing these claims. 2. The court erred in finding that the anticipated revenues of the county were insufficient to meet its expenses. 3. The court erred in concluding as a matter of law that Section 30-1517 applies to ordinary and necessary expenses and those which are in effect involuntary. 4. The court erred in affirming the order of the Board disallowing the actual and necessary expenses of county officers. 5. The court erred in affirming the order of the Board disallowing the claim of appellant State Insurance Fund."

In our view of the case, but two questions are presented for determination. First: May a warrant redemption fund be used to pay necessary and ordinary expenses of county government? And, second: May a board of county commissioners allow a claim for...