Mombert v. Bannock County
| Decision Date | 19 January 1904 |
| Parties | MOMBERT v. BANNOCK COUNTY |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
BOARD OF PRISONERS-LIABILITY OF COUNTY-LIABILITY OF SHERIFF.
1. Where the statute provides that the "Sheriff must receive all persons committed to jail by competent authority and provide them with necessary food, clothing and bedding for which he shall be allowed a reasonable compensation to be determined by the board of commissioners," and that he "Shall be allowed in addition to his salary, as fixed by said board, the actual and necessary expenses for care of each prisoner confined in the county jail," it is held that an individual furnishing the sheriff with such board and supplies must look to the sheriff for his pay and cannot maintain his action for the value thereof against the county.
2. Held, further, that where the statute provides that the officer "Shall at the end of each quarter file with the clerk of the board of county commissioners a sworn statement accompanied by proper vouchers, showing all expenses incurred and all fees received, which must be audited by the board as other accounts," a sheriff must file such vouchers before his claim therefor can be allowed.
(Syllabus by the court.)
dissents to paragraph 1 of syllabus.
APPEAL from District Court in and for Bannock County. Honorable Alfred Budge, Judge.
Plaintiff filed his claim with the board of commissioners of Bannock county for board furnished prisoners under contract with the sheriff and the commissioners rejected the claim. Plaintiff appealed to the district court, where he obtained a judgment for the amount claimed. From the judgment of the district court the county appealed. Reversed.
Reversed and cause dismissed. Costs awarded to appellant.
Attorney General John A. Bagley and J. J. Guheen, for Appellant.
This is an action upon an appeal from an order of the board of county commissioners of Bannock county, made at their January meeting, 1903, disallowing the claim of Joseph Mombert for $ 377.10, for meals furnished the prisoners in the Bannock county jail as set out in the claim of said Mombert, said claim being disallowed for the reason that the same was not a proper county charge, the sheriff of Bannock county having theretofore filed his bill for the board of said prisoners for the same time included in the bill of said Mombert. An appeal from the order of said board disallowing said bill was duly taken to the district court of the fifth judicial district, and upon a trial of said cause in said court the order of said board was reversed and canceled and said board was ordered and directed to allow said claim and cause a warrant of Bannock county to be issued and delivered to said Mombert in payment of said bill, which said judgment of the district court was duly entered May 13, 1903, from which judgment Bannock county now appeals to this court. The claim of Mombert is the complaint in this action and sets up an express contract with Martin D. Rice, sheriff of Bannock county, for the furnishing of meals to the prisoners in the Bannock county jail at the express and agreed price of fifteen cents per meal, and said claim further alleges that said Martin D. Rice has not paid said amount of said claim ($ 377.10), or any part thereof. Said claim nowhere alleges wherein Bannock county authorized or contracted with said Mombert to furnish said meals at said price, or any price, or made any contract in relation to the same with said Mombert, or authorized anyone else to make such contract with said Mombert, either as the agent of said county or otherwise, and we respectfully submit that under such a showing upon the face of said claim the court should not have permitted, over the objection of the defendant, any evidence, other than the appeal and the records in said cause, to be received, which sought to bind Bannock county to pay Mombert for said meals. (Board of County Commissioners of Atchison Co. v. Tomlinson, 9 Kan. 168.) Plaintiff's contention is, and the court in its conclusions of law found, that the sheriff of Bannock county is the agent of said county in procuring said meals and board for prisoners confined in the county jail, and that the county is primarily liable to the plaintiff for the payment thereof. Under our laws we believe that the feeding of the prisoners and the furnishing of necessary food is as much an official duty of the sheriff as any other duty enjoined by law, and we do not think the county commissioners have any right to interfere with him in such duty except in a supervisory manner to see that he performs this duty properly and to allow him a reasonable compensation for the same. This identical question has been decided under similar statutes to those of Idaho by the supreme court of Kansas. (Hendricks v. Board of County Commissioners of Chautauqua Co., 35 Kan. 483, 11 P. 450.) Plaintiff cannot recover on quantum meruit or implied contract. (Hampton v. Board of County Commissioners of Logan Co., 4 Idaho 646, 43 P. 324; Argenti v. San Francisco, 16 Cal. 255; 15 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 1084; Board of Commissioners v. Seawell, 3 Okla. 281, 41 P. 592-594.) Persons contracting with such artificial creations of the law as municipal corporations and public officers are charged with notice of the character and constitution of the entity with which they deal. They know the law and know what are valid acts of such artificial persons. They contract at their peril. (Murphy v. Napa Co., 20 Cal. 497; Sharp v. Contra Costa Co., 34 Cal. 284; Branahan v. Mayor etc. of San Jose, 24 Cal. 585; Kelly, Sheriff, v. Multnomah Co., 18 Or. 356, 22 P. 1110; Roberts v. Commissioners of Pottawatomie Co., 10 Kan. 32.)
Thomas F. Terrell, for Respondent.
It is not contended by appellant that the ex-sheriff ever paid respondent for the board in question, or that Bannock county has ever paid any person for it. It is conceded that the claim made by the ex-sheriff against the county for this board was not accompanied by a voucher showing payment or any voucher. It therefore follows that the ex-sheriff has never presented a valid or legal claim to the board of county commissioners for the board in question, and as a matter of fact he never will, because he has never paid for such board, and therefore cannot present a legal claim for it. This being true, can Bannock county escape liability to the person who actually furnished the board, when the Political Code, section 1786, says that the value of such board is a proper county charge. The order made by the county commissioners on the sixteenth day of January, 1902, allowing the ex-sheriff forty-five cents per day for board for each prisoner confined in the county jail, regardless of what such board cost, is absolutely void. The county commissioners had no right to arbitrarily fix the amount to be allowed for the board of each prisoner without reference to what the actual expense of such keeping might be, nor in advance of the time when such expenses were incurred. (People v. Board of Supervisors, 45 A.D. 42, 60 N.Y.S. 1126; Board of Commissioners v. Barnes, 123 Ind. 403, 24 N.E. 137; Libby v. Board of Commissioners, 38 Minn. 448, 38 N.W. 205; Board of Commissioners v. Fullen, 118 Ind. 158, 20 N.E. 771; Fremont Co. v. Brandon, 6 Idaho 482, 54 P. 264; Dunbar v. Board of Commissioners, 5 Idaho 407, 49 P. 409; People v. Board of Supervisors, 45 A.D. 42, 60 N.Y.S. 1122; People v. Board of Town Auditors, 156 N.Y. 689, 50 N.E. 1120; Ada County v. Gess, 4 Idaho 611, 43 P. 71; Neville v. Solano County, 29 Cal. 251.) The contract is between the county and the person performing the service. The services are rendered to the county, and if a county charge, may be collected by the person performing such service. (Jolly v. Woodward, 4 Idaho 496, 42 P. 512; Feldenheimer v. County of Woodbury, 56 Iowa 379, 9 N.W. 315; Miller v. County of Dickenson, 68 Iowa 102, 26 N.W. 31.)
The question presented for determination in this case is: Is the county liable to a person who furnishes board to prisoners confined in the county jail and can such a person maintain his action against the county for the value thereof? The respondent furnished the sheriff of Bannock county board for prisoners detained by him in the county jail during the year 1902, and about January, 1903, and while the sheriff was indebted to respondent in the sum of $ 377.10 for such board, it was discovered that the sheriff was a defaulter in a large sum, and thereupon the respondent filed his claim with the board of county commissioners for the amount due him, alleging that the same had been furnished the county at the instance and request of the sheriff. The board of commissioners rejected the claim and the claimant appealed to the district court. The matter was there heard and judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff, and from such judgment the county has appealed to this court.
It is the contention of appellant that the county is liable only to the sheriff for the board of prisoners, and that any person furnishing such board at the request of the sheriff must look to him directly for his pay and cannot maintain his action against the county. The respondent, on the other hand insists that the sheriff is only the agent of the county for the procuring of such board and that the county is primarily liable directly to the person furnishing the same. In support of the position of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bingham County v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.
... ... (1 Brandt on Suretyship, 3d ed., sec. 259; ... Iowa & C. Land Co. v. Temescal Water Co., 95 F. 320; ... Hart v. Cooper, 47 Cal. 77; Mombert v. Bannock Co., ... 9 Idaho 470, 75 P. 239.) ... J. J ... Guheen, Attorney General, Robt. McCracken, County Attorney, ... and Standrod ... ...