Heidelburg v. St. Francois County

• Decision Date: 10 February 1890
• Citation: 100 Mo. 69,12 S.W. 914
• Parties: HEIDELBURG v. ST. FRANCOIS COUNTY.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

12 S.W. 914

100 Mo. 69

HEIDELBURG v. ST. FRANCOIS COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

February 10, 1890.

COUNTIES — CONTRACTS — BRIDGES — ESTOPPEL.

1. Where a road commissioner contracts orally with plaintiff to do certain work on a bridge, without advertising the time and place of letting the contract, or in other respects complying with the provisions of Laws Mo. 1883, §§ 4314-4320, relating to the building of bridges, the contract is void.

2. Rev. St. Mo. 1879, § 1218, which provides that if a claim against a county be for work done or materials furnished in good faith by the claimant, under contract with the county authorities, the claimant shall be entitled to recover, though the authorities, in making the contract, may not have pursued the form prescribed by law, has no connection with the special statute in relation to bridges, which confers special powers, and prescribes a special method for their exercise and execution.

3. The acceptance by the commissioner of a bridge built under a contract which is void because the law has not been complied with, and the acceptance by the county of the commissioner's report, and payment of a claim for work done on the bridge, will not preclude the county from denying the validity of the contract, as the doctrine of estoppel does not apply to counties.

BARCLAY, J., dissenting.

Appeal from circuit court, St. Francois county; JAMES D. FOX, Judge.

The facts developed in this cause were that the county court wanted to build a bridge over Big river, and the court and commissioner agreed upon certain plans and specifications for the building of the bridge, advertised the letting as provided for by law, and the J. A. Bullen Bridge Company was the lowest bidder for the building of the same, and the contract was made by the commissioner in accordance with the plans and specifications. The commissioner made report of the cost of the bridge before advertising and letting to the lowest bidder, and the county court made an appropriation for the payment for the building, under plans agreed on with the Bullen Bridge Company. Before the Bullen Bridge Company commenced work under their contract, the commissioner contracted with plaintiff to build the abutments and pier wider and longer; and it was under this parol contract for extra work that plaintiff sought to recover. On the conclusion of the testimony, the trial court gave a declaration of law, to the effect that on the pleading and evidence the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, and judgment for the defendant. Hence this appeal.

W. M. Carter and Smith, Silver & Brown, for appellant. Merrill Pipkin, for respondent.

SHERWOOD, J., (after stating the facts as above.)

At the time when these matters mentioned in the petition occurred, the law relating to bridges had been changed by the act approved March 14, 1883, and that act was in force. Laws 1883, p. 31. Sections 4314, 4316, 4317, 4319, 4320 of the amendatory act are as follows: "Sec. 4314. If the county court be of opinion that a bridge is necessary, and that it shall be built at the expense of the county, they shall determine in what manner, and of what materials, the same shall be built, and the probable cost thereof, and shall order the road commissioner to let the contract for building such bridge, and for keeping the same in repair not less than two nor more than four years, to be determined by the county court." "Sec. 4316. The commissioner shall do nothing towards building the bridge, after the letting thereof, until an appropriation for the same shall first be made by the county court." "Sec. 4317. Unless the court, from its own information, shall be satisfied as to the expense of building the bridge, it shall be the duty of said court to require the commissioner to proceed to the spot where the bridge is to be built, and make an accurate estimate of the cost of building the same, according to any plan or plans ordered by the court, or such as in his opinion may be best, and without delay make report thereof." "Sec. 4319. The commissioner shall advertise the time and place of letting the bridge at three public places in the township where such bridge is to be built, or by publication in some newspaper published in the county, or both, as the court may direct, for not less than twenty days prior to letting the same." "Sec. 4320. He shall let the same, subject to approval or rejection by the court, by public outcry, to the person making the lowest bid. If such letting be approved by the court, it shall make an appropriation for building such bridge, and order the commissioner to contract therefor at the price let, who, in contracting, shall take bond, payable to the county, with two good and sufficient householders as securities, in such penalty as he shall deem sufficient to cover all damages which may accrue from the breach of such contract."

Section 1218, Rev. St. 1879, on which plaintiff relies, is the following: "If a claim against a county be for work and labor done, or material furnished, in good faith, by the claimant, under contract with the county authorities, or with any agent of the county lawfully...