Miller v. Douglas County

• Decision Date: 29 May 1907
• Citation: 204 Mo. 194,102 S.W. 996
• Parties: MILLER v. DOUGLAS COUNTY.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

102 S.W. 996

204 Mo. 194

MILLER v. DOUGLAS COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

May 29, 1907.

1. COUNTIES — CLAIMS — PHYSICIAN'S SERVICES.

Rev. St. 1899, § 6759 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 1252], provides that no county shall make any contract unless within the scope of its powers, and requires the contract, including the consideration, to be in writing, subscribed by the parties or their agents, etc. Section 1800 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 3327] declares that on a claim against a county for work and labor done in good faith by the claimant, under contract with the county authorities, or with any agent of the county lawfully authorized, the claimant, if he shall have fulfilled his contract, shall be entitled to recover the just value thereof, though the authorities or the agent may not, in making the contract, have pursued the form of proceedings prescribed by law. Held, that where a physician furnished medicines and medical attendance to prisoners confined in a county jail from time to time at the oral request of the sheriff, the jailer, or prosecuting attorney, without any contract therefor, he could not recover the reasonable value thereof from the county under either section.

2. SAME — CRIMINAL CASES—COSTS—MEDICAL ATTENTION.

Rev. St. 1899, § 8134 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 3853], provides that, where a prisoner confined in jail is sick and, in the judgment of the jailer, needs medical attention, the jailer shall procure the same, and the costs shall be taxed and paid as other costs in criminal cases, or the county court may, in its discretion, employ a physician by the year. Held that, while a jailer, under such section, was authorized to procure medicines and medical attendance for a sick prisoner in his custody, the physician furnishing the same could not recover therefor in an action against the county, but that the cost should be taxed and paid as other costs in criminal cases.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Douglas County; Asbery Burkhead, Judge.

Action by H. M. Miller against Douglas county. From a judgment of the circuit court in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals to the St. Louis Court of Appeals, by which the case was certified to the Supreme Court on a full transcript. Reversed.

Fred Stewart, for appellant. J. S. Clarke, for respondent.

LAMM, J.

Plaintiff filed for allowance and payment, in the county court of Douglas county, an itemized claim for $116.55 for medical services and drugs furnished to divers prisoners confined in the jail of that county during the year 1902. That court refused to allow and pay the claim, and plaintiff appealed to the circuit court, and, on trial anew with the aid of a jury, a judgment went in his favor for $83. Upon due preliminary steps, defendant county appealed to the St. Louis Court of Appeals. Subsequently, on a full transcript being lodged in that court, it handed down an order transferring the cause to this court under section 12 of article 6 of the Constitution, giving this court appellate jurisdiction in cases where a county or other political subdivision of the state is a party, and the cause came here. Appellant's abstract is not constructed in obedience to the rules of this court, but the case having come to us from the St. Louis Court of Appeals, and the rules of that court in that behalf being somewhat different from our own, as a matter of grace we heretofore overruled a motion to dismiss the appeal, and now proceed to consider the case on its merits.

Plaintiff introduced evidence, tending to show that from time to time at the request of the sheriff in some instances, and the request of the jailer in others, and of the prosecuting attorney in still others, he furnished to certain prisoners confined in the jail of Douglas county, to wit, Weaver, Young, Riley, Hicks, Thomas, and Walker, medicines and medical attendance of the reasonable value of the amount claimed. By other evidence he showed that, prior to rendering the services and furnishing medicines sued for, he had furnished medicine and services under similar circumstances under some verbal arrangement with different members of the county court, which had been paid, and other evidence tending to show that he relied on this loose arrangement continuing to run and to cover the medicines and services in suit. It was shown there was no written contract between plaintiff and the county court. There was no evidence that plaintiff had been appointed county physician. There was evidence that the prisoners, or some of them, were confined on charges of murder,...