Haupt v. Maricopa County

• Decision Date: 19 March 1902
• Docket Number: Civil 777
• Parties: H. HAUPT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MARICOPA COUNTY, Defendant and Appellee
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

68 P. 525

8 Ariz. 102

H. HAUPT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MARICOPA COUNTY, Defendant and Appellee

Civil No. 777

Supreme Court of Arizona

March 19, 1902

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court of the Third Judicial District in and for the County of Maricopa. Webster Street Judge. Reversed.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Millay & Christy, for Appellant.

A municipal corporation may contract through its agents. City of McPherson v. Nichols, 48 Kan. 430, 29 P 679; Beers v. Dalles City, 16 Or. 334, 18 P. 835; Carleton v. City of Washington, 38 Kan. 726, 17 P 656; Ward v. Town of Forest Grove, 20 Or. 355, 25 P. 1020.

The power to contract through an agent carries also the power to ratify a contract made by one claiming to be an agent. Town of Durango v. Pennington, 8 Colo. 257, 7 P. 14; City of Ellsworth v. Rossite, 46 Kan. 237, 26 P. 674.

A. J Edwards, and Oliver P. Morton, for Appellee.

A public servant appointed for a particular purpose cannot bind a county in contract when such contract is clearly without the apparent scope of his authority. Any one contracting with a public official, agent, or servant is bound to know whether such party has the authority to contract and the scope of that authority. Packard v. Voltz, 94 Iowa 277, 58 Am. St. Rep. 396, 62 N.W. 757; Coffee County v. Venard, 10 Kan. 95; Smith v. Carlton County, 46 F. 340; Sherbourne v. Yuba County, 21 Cal. 113, 81 Am. Dec. 151; Ruffman v. San Joaquin County, 21 Cal. 427.

For cases holding that contracts of counties are ultra vires and void when made under circumstances similar to the case at bar, see People v. Cazneau, 20 Cal. 503; People v. Pico, 20 Cal. 595; Miller v. Board of Commissioners, 4 Idaho, 44, 35 P. 712; Morrell v. Douglass, 14 Kan. 293; Noble v. Cain, 22 Kan. 493; Wallace v. Mayor of San Jose, 29 Cal. 188.

OPINION

DAVIS, J.

-- On the thirteenth day of October, 1900, the justice of the peace and the constable of Gila Bend, in Maricopa County, telegraphed to the board of supervisors of said county stating that there were a number of cases of diphtheria at Gila Bend, that there was no doctor there, that the parties were unable to send for a doctor, and requesting the board to send a doctor at once. The board sent Dr. Woodruff to Gila Bend, with instructions to do whatever he thought right and proper to eradicate and prevent the spread of the disease. Dr. Woodruff left Phoenix Saturday evening, October 13th, returned Saturday morning, October 20th, and reported to the board on Monday, October 22d, that there had been several very marked cases of diphtheria at Gila Bend, one death while he was there, and one since he left; also stated that he had left orders with the justice of the peace and constable as to whom to quarantine and length of time to quarantine; advised that the county furnish a tent and bedding to sick family, and, as soon as the quarantine is lifted from them, to move them into the tent and burn their house, which is a small affair. The board, after discussion of the matter, adopted the suggestions and recommendations of the doctor, and instructed him to write to the officers in charge what to do in the matter. On October 27, 1900, Dr. Woodruff returned to Gila Bend, moved the family into the tent provided by the county, and, after stating that the appellant herein would be reimbursed by the county for all property destroyed, set fire to and burned the house which had been occupied by the sick family, and all the furniture, household effects, stores, and personal property therein contained. On November 3, 1900, the appellant presented to the board of supervisors of Maricopa County an itemized claim against said county for $988.08 for the property so destroyed, duly verified as required by the statute, and on November 17, 1900, at a regular meeting of the board, the claim of the appellant was taken up, and, after hearing the evidence of the appellant and Dr. Woodruff, the quarantine doctor mentioned above, and after fully discussing the matter, the board decided to allow the appellant the sum of $400, and directed the clerk to notify the appellant officially of the award. The clerk of the board sent to the appellant written notice, under the seal of the county, of the award, whereupon he filed, in the district court, this suit against the county for the full amount of the claim. The case was tried to a jury, and, after the plaintiff's evidence was in, counsel for defendant moved for an instruction to the jury to return a verdict for the defendant. For the purpose of this motion, the value of the property was admitted to be as claimed. After argument by the respective counsel, the motion was granted. The jury was so instructed by the court, and thereupon returned a verdict for the defendant, and judgment followed on the verdict. The foregoing is an agreed statement of the facts in the case for the purposes of the plaintiff's appeal to this court, the evidence at large not being preserved in the record.

Did the court err in directing a verdict for the defendant? It is now well settled in this territory that, where the evidence for the plaintiff, taken as true and in its strongest light against the defendant, presents no case upon which the plaintiff is entitled to recover, the court may instruct the jury to return a verdict for the defendant. Root v Fay, 5 Ariz. 19, 43 P. 527; Roberts v. Smith, 5 Ariz. 368, 52 P. 1120; Haff v. Adams, 6 Ariz. 395, 59 P. 111. We have therefore to determine whether, under the agreed facts, regarded in their most favorable light for the appellant, a case is presented upon which, as a matter of law, a recovery could be had against the county in its corporate capacity for the destruction of his property. A county is the local subdivision of a state or territory. It is created by the state for the purposes of government. Its functions, political and administrative, have direct relation to the policy of the state. It is possessed of only such powers as the state chooses to give it. It can incur no liability except in pursuance of law. It cannot be made to respond for wrongs...