Hyde v. Board of Com'rs of Converse County, 1846

Decision Date10 April 1934
Docket Number1846
PartiesHYDE v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF CONVERSE COUNTY
CourtWyoming Supreme Court

APPEAL from District Court, Converse County; C. D. MURANE, Judge.

Action by A. E. Hyde against the Board of Commissioners of Converse County. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

The cause was submitted for the plaintiff and appellant on the brief of Dawson and Daniels of Douglas.

The question presented is the validity of the contract. It was contended at the trial that plaintiff was not the real party in interest; that the contract was made by a prior board and was not binding on the present board; that failure to make an appropriation in January, 1933, terminated the contract; that the contract was ultra vires; that no time of payment is specified therein. It was too late for defendant to raise a question as to the real party in interest. 2 Bancroft C. P. & R. 1096. The point cannot be raised by a general demurrer. Field v. Leiter, 16 Wyo. 1. Plaintiff was the real party in interest. 13 C. J. 705, 707. An action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. Evans v. Company, 20 Wyo. 188; Hecht v. Acme Company, 19 Wyo. 10; Wyoming Co. v. LaPorte, 26 Wyo. 522; Hay v. Hudson, 31 Wyo. 150; McDonald v. Mulkey, 32 Wyo. 144; Tuttle v. Short, 42 Wyo. 1. A Board of County Commissioners is a continuous Board and their contracts are binding even though the personnel may change. Bennett v. Petroleum County, 288 P. 1018; Tate v. Board (Mo.) 70 A. L. R. 771. The appropriation is sufficient. 30-106, R. S. 1931. No specific appropriation was necessary. The evidence shows that an appropriation was in fact made which was available for the payment of this obligation. Board v. Udall, 1 P.2d 348; State v. Burdick, 4 Wyo. 288; School District v. Company, 13 Wyo. 342. The contract was executed pursuant to statutory authority. Sec. 108-601, 605 R. S. 1931. The powers of a county as a body politic and corporate shall be exercised by a board of County Commissioners. 29-301, 302, R. S. 1931. The statute is broad in its terms, and there is no restriction against making the appropriation by execution of the contract. State v Burdick, 4 Wyo. 288. A contract of this nature for a period of three years is not one for such a length of time that it may as a matter of law be declared fraudulent or unreasonable.

The cause was submitted for the defendant and respondent on the brief of John J. McIntyre of Douglas.

This case stands on appeal with no controversy as to the facts. Two issues are presented. 1. Is the contract alleged to exist between the Trustees of the University of Wyoming, the defendant and the United States Department of Agriculture a valid one? 2. Can the plaintiff claim to be a beneficiary under the alleged contract and entitled to sue thereon? Respondent contends that the contract was never completed that no appropriation for the work was made for the year 1933; that the contract is ultra vires and void as contrary to public policy. A Board of County Commissioners can exercise only such powers as are conferred by the Constitution and laws of the state. 15 C. J. 457. The law authorizing counties to cooperate in agricultural extension work is set forth at Sections 108-602, 604, R. S. 1931, which clearly show that the Board had no authority to contract until they had made an appropriation. Sec. 30-106, R. S. 1931. The case of School District v. Western Tube Company, 13 Wyo. 304 involved the transfer of money from one fund to another, a practice no longer authorized by the statutes. Section 3930, R. S. 1887. Our present statute requires an appropriation. The contract was contrary to public policy in that it covered a period beyond the term of the Board. 70 A. L. R. 794; 2 Words and Phrases (2d) 768; 15 C. J. 542. Moreover, the extension department could be abolished at any time. Lee v. Board, 3 Wyo. 52; Reals v. Smith, 8 Wyo. 159; State v. Grant, 14 Wyo. 41; State v. Ross, 31 Wyo. 500; Griggs v. Board, 5 Wyo. 274. The contract itself failed to provide for any payments to be made to the County Agent. The work was to be under the supervision of the Director of Extension Service, and nothing was due under the contract at the time of plaintiff's suit, he not being employed by the county but by the University. The record shows that the contract was invalid, for the reason that it was never completed; no appropriation was made, and it was contrary to public policy. The judgment below should be affirmed.

RINER, Justice.

OPINION

RINER, Justice.

This is a proceeding by direct appeal to obtain the review of a judgment of the District Court of Converse County. For convenience, the plaintiff and appellant, A. E. Hyde, will be referred to generally as the "plaintiff" or by his own name, and the defendant and respondent, The Board of the County Commissioners of the County of Converse, as simply the "Board" or the "County Board."

The facts out of which this litigation arose are not in dispute and are substantially these:

By an act of the Legislature approved Feb. 11, 1915 (ch. 25, Laws Wyo. 1915), the State of Wyoming "assented to and accepted" the terms and conditions of an Act of Congress entitled "An Act to provide for Cooperative Agricultural Extension Work between the Agricultural Colleges in the several states receiving the benefits of the Act of Congress approved July 2, 1862, and Acts supplementary thereto, and the United States Department of Agriculture." This National law received executive sanction May 8, 1914, and is commonly known as the "Smith-Lever Act." The Wyoming statute above mentioned, as it became a law contained 8 sections. Sections 1, 4, 5, and 6 thereof have been carried forward in subsequent legislation and appear substantially as sections 108-601, 108-603, 108-604, and 108-605, Wyo. Rev. St. 1931; sections 2, 7 and 8 do not concern the subsequent legislative history of the act; its section 3, however, contained the genesis of section 108-602, Wyo. Rev. St. 1931. This section, as originally passed, after authorizing the county commissioners of each of the several counties of the State to provide and appropriate funds for the agricultural extension work, contained therein the following clause.:

"For each dollar so provided by such county there is hereby appropriated, in addition to the appropriation provided for in Section 2 of this Act, the sum of two dollars to be paid out of any moneys in the general fund of the state not otherwise appropriated and to be available when the Secretary of State has been advised by the certificate of the County Commissioners of such county, countersigned by the president of the State University, that such provision has been actually made and that memorandums of agreement have been entered into between said county and the Agricultural College of the University of Wyoming, said moneys to be turned in to the Treasurer of the Board of Trustees of the University."

In 1921, some change was made by the Legislature in said section (Laws 1921, ch. 64) not material here, but in 1923 it was again altered by amendment so that no provision whatsoever appears therein relative to "memorandums of agreement * * * between said county and the Agricultural College of the University of Wyoming." (Laws 1923, ch. 85). In 1929, the entire section, as amended in 1923, was expressly repealed, and in its stead was substituted the language which now appears as Wyo. Rev. St. 1931, § 108-602, and reads:

"The boards of county commissioners of each county of the state are hereby authorized and empowered to co-operate in extension work in agriculture and home economics in such county, under the supervision of the agricultural college of the university of Wyoming through its extension division; and such boards are authorized and empowered to appropriate and expend out of county funds not otherwise appropriated, such moneys as they may deem expedient for the purposes of such work; provided, that such annual appropriation shall not exceed the sum of one-fourth (1/4) mill of the taxable assessed valuation of the county for the previous year."

Section 108-604 is as follows:

"When the county commissioners of any county or district, composed of two or more counties, have complied with the provisions of § 108-602, they shall make a request for a county agent or agricultural expert to be sent them by the agricultural college of the university of Wyoming and the authorities of said university shall provide them with a suitable man, qualified to do the work usually expected from a man educated in the science of agriculture; provided, an unsatisfactory man shall not be continued as county agent. And it shall be the duty of the agricultural college of the university to carry into effect the provisions of conferring with each board of county commissioners."

Under date of January, 1931, a "contract for co-operative extension service" was undertaken to be entered into between the Trustees of the University of Wyoming, a corporation, the Board of County Commissioners of Converse County, and the United States Department of Agriculture. It bears the duly attested signature, under date of January 7 1931, of H. A. Gillespie, as Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Converse County, and, on the 12th of that month, it appears to have been signed by A. E. Crane, President of the University, purporting to act for said Trustees. It seems, also, to have been executed by one A. E. Bowman, as "Director of Extension," who, as testimony in the record indicates, was acting for both the University of Wyoming and the United States Department of Agriculture. By this memorandum of agreement, the contracting parties covenanted to contribute annually to support the work of "an...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • State ex rel. Eaton v. Hirst, 2047
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 25 Mayo 1938
    ......163 STATE EX REL. EATON v. HIRST, COUNTY TREASURER (OMAHA NATIONAL BANK, ET AL., ...v. County. Commissioners, 3 Wyo. 595; Hyde v. Commissioners, 47 Wyo. 101; State v. ... District, 67 P.2d 192; Hotel Company v. Board, 39. Wyo. 461; White v. Hinton, 3 Wyo. 754; ......
  • Town of Lovell v. Menhall
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 29 Octubre 1963
    ...possession of an important governmental power without practical means for its exercise.' We recognized this in Hyde v. Board of Com'rs of Converse County, 47 Wyo. 101, 31 P.2d 75. On several occasions the courts have departed from simply classifying the function and the cases have turned on......
  • Mariano & Associates, P.C. v. Board of County Com'rs of Sublette County, 86-206
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 14 Mayo 1987
    ...is dispositive, we will not pursue discussion on the other issues submitted. II. WYOMING PRECEDENT In Hyde v. Board of Commissioners of Converse County, 47 Wyo. 101, 31 P.2d 75 (1934), a one-year contract for a county extension agent involved the period from July 1, 1932 to June 30, 1933. I......
  • Miller v. Campbell County, Wyo.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of Wyoming
    • 2 Octubre 1989
    ...Haddenham v. Board of County Commissioners of Carbon County, 679 P.2d 429, 431 (Wyo.1984) (citing Hyde v. Board of County Commissioners of Converse County, 47 Wyo. 101, 31 P.2d 75 (1934)). The state of Wyoming has inherent police powers to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, whi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT