Orendorff v. Board of Com'rs of Grant County

• Decision Date: 17 November 1914
• Docket Number: 3909.
• Citation: 144 P. 383,44 Okla. 271,1914 OK 563
• Parties: ORENDORFF v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF GRANT COUNTY.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

144 P. 383

44 Okla. 271, 1914 OK 563

ORENDORFF v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF GRANT COUNTY.

No. 3909.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

November 17, 1914

Syllabus by the Court.

Error will not be presumed on appeal in a civil case, but must be made to affirmatively appear, or the presumption will prevail that no prejudicial error was committed.

Before a county officer can rightfully draw money from the county treasury, either for salary, fees, expenses, or extra compensation, he must be able to point to some constitutional or statutory provision or some lawful contract, either express or implied, that justifies his claim to such money.

Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 2. Error from District Court, Grant County; W. M. Boles, Judge.

Action by the Board of Commissioners of Grant County against J. D Orendorff. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

J. B Drennan, of Medford, and F. G. Walling, of Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

Emery H. Breeden, of Medford, for defendant in error.

GALBRAITH C.

The writ of error in this case was sued out to review the judgment of the district court of Grant county, rendered in an action instituted by the board of commissioners of that county, against the plaintiff in error, as defendant, to recover certain claims and allowances which he had presented against said county and collected on warrants issued thereon while a member of the board of commissioners of Grant county for the term commencing November 16, 1907, and ending January 9, 1911.

There were 18 counts in the petition, each setting out a particular claim that had been presented to the county commissioners by the plaintiff in error and allowed and warrant issued therefor, and paid by the county treasurer of said county. It was charged that each of the claims were not lawful claims against the county, and the presentation and allowance and collection thereof was a violation of the official duty of the plaintiff in error and a breach of his official bond; the sureties on his bond being made defendants in the action. The several claims set out in the petition were as follows: The first count charged the collection of $5 in excess of salary due. The second charged the collection of $47.50, including two items, one for $17.50 for expenses on a trip to Guthrie on county seat business, and $30 for 10 days service in looking after the poor farm. The third charged the collection of an unauthorized claim of $48, made up of three items, $6 for bridge work, $25 expenses in moving county seat, and $17 expenses on trip to Guthrie. The fourth charged the collection of a claim for $102 for road and bridge work. The fifth charged the collection of an unauthorized claim for $75.90 composed of two items, ten days' services in procuring plans for courthouse at $3 per day, and traveling expenses $45.90. The sixth charged the collection of an unlawful claim of $15 for expenses on a trip to Guthrie. The seventh charged the collection of another claim of $10 for expenses on a trip to Guthrie. The eighth charged the collection of $15 in excess of the amount authorized by law on a claim for road and bridge work. The ninth charged the collection of $75 for 25 days for road and bridge work. The tenth charged the collection of a claim for $6.40 for expenses and hotel bill on a trip to Guthrie. The eleventh charged the collection of an expense account of $16 on another trip to Guthrie. The twelfth charged the collection of an account for $126 for looking after county farm, house and barn for 36 days at $1.50 per day, $54, expense team, car fare, and meals, $72, total $126. The thirteenth charged the collection of a claim for $3.80 expense account for trip to Enid. The fourteenth charged the collection of an account for $15 for overcharge on road and bridge work. The fifteenth charged the collection of expenses in overseeing the construction of courthouse and jail at Medford from January, 1909, to November, 1910, board and livery, 120 days at $2 per day, $240, team, 120 days at $2 per day, $240, feed and board for team, 120 days at 75 cents per day, $90, total $570. The sixteenth charged the collection of an overcharge on a claim for...