Mobile County v. Williams

Citation61 So. 963,180 Ala. 639
PartiesMOBILE COUNTY v. WILLIAMS, Judge.
Decision Date17 April 1913
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

On Application for Rehearing, May 8, 1913

Appeal from Law and Equity Court, Mobile County; Saffold Berney Judge.

Action by the County of Mobile against Price Williams, Jr., Judge to collect moneys alleged to have been illegally paid him. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion. Plea 4 is as follows: "That each and all of the several claims and demands set up in complaint are parts of, and embrace in, a certain claim aggregating, to wit, $5,056.25, found and presented against the defendant, Price Williams, Jr., judge of probate of Mobile county, Ala., by the examiner of public accounts, for and on behalf of Mobile county, Ala.; that the said claim was made a few months prior to the 5th day of February, 1912; that the same consisted of amounts allowed to the said Price Williams, Jr., as judge of probate of said county, by the board of revenue and road commissioners of said county for furnishings for his office and for sundry services rendered by him; that of all said amounts aforesaid under orders by the said board of revenue and road commissioners, less than $1,000 of said amounts were allowed and paid subsequent to the adoption of the Code of Alabama on, to wit, August 26, 1909; that on, to wit, the 5th day of February, 1912, the said Price Williams, Jr., judge of probate of Mobile county, presented to the said board of revenue and road commissioners of Mobile county, Ala., a proposition, a true copy of which is hereto attached, marked Exhibit A, and made a part hereof; that each and all of the demands presented and asserted in and by the complaint in this cause are parts of, and are embraced within, the claim on the part of the county of Mobile against the said Price Williams, Jr., set forth in the said proposition, a copy of which is Exhibit A hereto; that on, to wit, the 2d day of April 1912, the said board of revenue and road commissioners in meeting assembled, heard, considered, acted upon and accepted the said proposition, a true copy of the action of the said board on the aforesaid proposition, as revealed by the minutes of the said board, is hereto attached, marked Exhibit B, and made a part of this plea; and that by virtue of the matters and things aforesaid, all of which occurred before the bringing of this suit, the claims and demands sued upon in this cause were compromised and fully settled, and these defendants were released and discharged from all liability by reason thereof." Exhibit A to this plea is a petition addressed by Price Williams, Jr., judge of probate, to the board of commissioners, setting up that the matters charged to him by the examiners of public accounts and stating that under a ruling of the Attorney General certain items were eliminated, leaving a certain amount as chargeable to the judge of probate, and that each item of said claim arises on account of and is based upon moneys paid to your petitioner in good faith, and received by him in good faith, by order of this honorable court, and that each item claimed is doubtful, whereupon, he offers a compromise. Exhibit B is the act of the board accepting the proposition after full consideration because of the fact that the claim is doubtful. The demurrers to the plea raise the questions decided in the opinion.

The following is plea 5: "That all of the several claims and demands set up in the complaint are based upon the following facts: During the period beginning with the first of the year 1906, and ending with the last of the year 1910 the defendant Williams from time to time made claims against the plaintiff for fees for services in insanity inquisition cases in which the defendant or insane party was a pauper adjudged insane; that the aggregate of the amounts so claimed during said period was $2.859.75; that during said period he further made claim against the said county for the sum of $343 for signing and sealing county bonds; that during said period he further made claim against the county for $573 for indexing the minutes of the board of revenue and road commissioners of the said county; that each and all of said claims were made out in writing as claims against the county and were duly and fully itemized so as to show the exact services performed and were verified by the oath of the defendant Williams; that from time to time, and within 12 months after they accrued, the said claims were filed with and presented to the said board of revenue and road commissioners of Mobile county, Ala.; that the said board in each instance knew and was fully informed of all of the facts connected with and bearing upon the claim; that each one of the said claims was allowed and passed to payment by the said board of revenue and road commissioners and a warrant ordered issued therefor; that all of these proceedings were duly entered upon the minutes of the said board and there appear; that all of the said warrants therefor were paid to the said Williams by the treasurer of the county within the period aforesaid; that the several demands and claims set forth in the complaint in this case are all for money paid to and received by the said Williams as aforesaid, although in the complaint the amount so paid and received each year is stated and claimed in a separate allegation of a breach of the bond sued upon."

The demurrers raise the questions decided in the opinion.

Norborne R. Clarke, Sol., of Mobile, Robert C. Brickell, Atty. Gen., and W.L. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

Stevens, Lyons & Dean, of Mobile, for appellee.

DE GRAFFENRIED, J.

We do not, of course, ascribe bad faith to any of the officers of the county of Mobile in this discussion of the legal questions which are presented by this record. On the contrary, we are satisfied that the transaction was had without bad faith on the part of any of said officers. We think it probable that the transactions set up by the pleadings grew up out of a custom which has prevailed in Mobile and possibly other counties of the state, and that the officials have been misled by such custom rather than from any intentional violation of the law. The whole theory of this case is based upon the assumption that there was no mala fides on the part of any one. Everything which was done by said officials was openly done and are matters of public record.

1. A county is, in one sense, a corporation, and in that sense it has its officers or agents who, when acting within the authority conferred upon them by law, may legally bind the county. In another sense a county is a political subdivision of the state, created for the purpose of aiding the state in the administration of the government of the state. In this latter sense a county is an arm of the state; its officers are public officials and are officers holding office under the laws of the state within the meaning of our Constitution; and their compensation is fixed by law. When, within the scope of their powers as fixed by statute, the county commissioners of a county are dealing simply with the business affairs of the county, such commissioners are, in fact, the agents of the county considered as a corporation, and they may bind the county just as the agents of any other corporation may bind the corporation of which they are the agents so long as they act within the actual scope of their authority. When, however, the members of the court of county commissioners of a county act in the other and broader field--when they leave the realm of business and are acting in their capacity as "officers holding office under the laws of this state"--their acts can confer no more rights upon persons claiming through such acts than do the acts of any other public official or set of public officials of the county or state. It may be well to bear this distinction in mind for the act of a public official, no matter what his apparent authority may be, which he is not authorized to perform, is void, not merely voidable, and confers no rights of any sort upon any one. "All who deal with officers or agents of the government must inquire at their peril into the extent of their powers." State ex rel. Lott v. Brewer, 64 Ala. 287.

2. A void thing is no thing. It has no legal effect whatsoever, and no rights whatever can be obtained under it or grow out of it. In law it is the same thing as if the void thing had never existed. Words and Phrases, vol. 8, p. 7332. It is true that a void deed may, in a proper case, be introduced in evidence as color of title to lands held adversely, but the adverse possession only can create the title to the land. The void deed is simply admissible for the purpose of showing the extent of the possession and the character of the adverse holding. When, however, the records of a court affirmatively show that one of its judgments is void, then that judgment confers no rights upon any one and furnishes protection to no one.

3. "The law of fees and costs must be held to be penal, and no fee must be demanded or received, except in cases expressly authorized by law." Code of 1907, § 3693.

A person claiming fees or costs must point to the definite law authorizing it; the law will not be extended beyond its letter; the law may impose duties upon public officers without providing compensation therefor. Pollard v. Brewer, 59 Ala. 130; Torbert v. Hale County, 131 Ala. 143, 30 So. 453.

"An officer demanding fees for services rendered must point to some clear and definite provision of the statute which authorizes the demand, and the compensation cannot be allowed unless it is conferred by a strict construction of the language employed in the statute. *** Troup v. Morgan County 109...

To continue reading

Request your trial
57 cases
  • Union Indemnity Co. v. Webster
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 25 Octubre 1928
    ...... Denied Dec. 6, 1928. . . Appeal. from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; C.B. Smith, Judge. . . Action. on surety bond by Joseph Ellis Webster against the ... entering into official bonds. Section 2612, Code of 1923;. Mobile County v. Williams, 180 Ala. 639, 61 So. 963. Count 6 in the instant case is practically the same ......
  • North Laramie Land Co. v. Hoffman
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 18 Octubre 1923
    ...... [219 P. 562] . . ERROR. to the District Court, Platte County; WILLIAM C. MENTZER,. Judge. . . Action. by the North Laramie Land Company as ... capacity. Converse County v. County, 53 So. 196;. Mobile Co. v. Williams, 61 So. 963; Albert v. Board, 161 P. 521; State v. Diemer, 164 S.W. 517; ......
  • Morgan County Commission v. Powell
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 4 Abril 1974
    ...... Mobile County v. Williams, Judge, 180 Ala. 639, 61 So. 963, and cases there cited, as well as section 7255 of the Code of 1923. The feed of the bailiff may ......
  • Ingram v. Evans, 7 Div. 98.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 16 Marzo 1933
    ...... Denied May 25, 1933. . . Appeal. from Circuit Court, Etowah County; Woodson J. Martin, Judge. . . Action. for breach of official bond by James Ingram ... officers, and that they gave the same. Kilgore v. Stanley, 90 Ala. 523, 8 So. 130; Williams v. Colbert. County, 81 Ala. 216, 1 So. 74; Brown v. Shelby. County, 204 Ala. 252, 85 So. 416; ... having application thereto are read into the bond and become. a part thereof (Mobile County v. Williams, Judge,. 180 Ala. 639, 61 So. 963; National Surety Co. v. State, 219 Ala. 609, ......
  • 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