Jordan v. Osceola Cnty.

• Decision Date: 22 September 1882
• Citation: 59 Iowa 388,13 N.W. 344
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court
• Parties: JORDAN & MCCALLUM v. OSCEOLA COUNTY.

59 Iowa 388

13 N.W. 344

JORDAN & MCCALLUM

v.OSCEOLA COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed September 22, 1882.

Appeal from Sioux district court.

Action to recover for legal services rendered by plaintiffs, who are attorneys at law. A verdict was had for plaintiffs, and a judgment rendered thereon. Defendant appeals.James T. Barclay and J. H. Swan, for appellant.

A. Jordan, for appellees.

BECK, J.

The questions presented in the case will be considered in the order of their discussion by defendant's counsel.

1. Evidence was admitted, against defendant's objection, tending to prove the employment of plaintiffs by an oral contract made by the supervisors, and no entry thereof was made in the records of the board of supervisors. De fendant insists that the evidence is incompetent, for the reason that all proceedings of the board are by law required to be recorded, and that parol testimony of matters which should be entered of record is only competent as secondary evidence. We held, in Tatlock v. Louisa Co. 46 Iowa, 138, that the entry upon the records of the supervisors of the fact that a contract was made is not necessary to its validity. The reason of this rule is obvious. A party contracting with the supervisors has no authority or power to cause the contractto be noted in the record; this rests alone with the county officers. The law will not permit prejudice and loss to the party contracting with the supervisors, by reason of the negligent or intentional omisson of the supervisors or other county officers to enter the fact of the contract upon the proper record. This rule is recognized in Baker v. Johnson Co. 33 Iowa, 153, and in Rice v. Plymouth Co. 43 Iowa, 136.

2. Counsel insist that plaintiffs can recover upon an express contract only; and that as the action of the supervisors does not bind defendants, there was no contract for employment. This position is based upon the ground that the county is not bound unless the contract be entered of record--a point we have just determined against the view of counsel.

3. Counsel for defendant maintain that the county had no authority to employ counsel, and it is not, therefore, bound by the contract whereby it employed plaintiff. This court has held that a county may employ counsel to prosecute or defend an action. Tatlock v. Louisa Co. 46 Iowa, 138. It un doubtedly has the right to employ counsel to perform other services.

4. It is urged that the supervisors are not authorized to bind defen...