Peterson v. County of Koochiching

• Decision Date: 23 June 1916
• Docket Number: 19,835 - (213)
• Citation: 158 N.W. 605,133 Minn. 343
• Parties: F. H. PETERSON v. COUNTY OF KOOCHICHING
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

158 N.W. 605

133 Minn. 343

F. H. PETERSON v. COUNTY OF KOOCHICHING

Nos. 19,835 - (213)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

June 23, 1916

Action in the district court for Koochiching county to recover $808.10 for legal services and expenses. The answer admitted that plaintiff rendered services of the value alleged in the complaint, but alleged that they were rendered in a criminal prosecution, and specifically denied that plaintiff was ever employed by defendant. The case was tried before Stanton, J who made findings and ordered judgment against defendant for the amount demanded. From the judgment entered pursuant to the order for judgment, defendant appealed. Affirmed.

SYLLABUS

County authorized to employ attorney to aid county attorney.

1. General Statutes 1913, § 970, authorizes the county board to employ an attorney to assist the county attorney in the prosecution of a criminal case, and to pay such attorney out of the funds of the county.

County authorized to employ attorney to aid county attorney -- ratification of act of county attorney.

2. If the county attorney, after informal conference with the board in session, undertakes to employ an attorney to assist him in pursuance of authority supposedly, though irregularly, given the county board may thereafter by ratification adopt his action and make it binding on the county, and the allowance of the bill for services of the attorney so chosen constitutes ratification.

J. H. Brown, Special Attorney, for appellant.

F. H. Peterson, pro se.

OPINION

HALLAM, J.

Plaintiff rendered services in the prosecution of a criminal case in Koochiching county. He sues the county for the value of his services. The trial court found for plaintiff and defendant appealed.

No question is raised as to the amount of the judgment if plaintiff is entitled to recover at all. The contention is that plaintiff is not entitled to recover any amount.

The statute [G.S. 1913, § 970] provides:

"When there is no county attorney, the county board may employ any competent attorney to perform such legal services for the county as may be necessary. Such board may also employ an attorney other than the county attorney, either to assist him, or to appear for the county or any officer thereof, in any action to which such county or officer in his official capacity is a party, or to advise the board or its members in relation thereto, or in relation to any other matter affecting the interests of the county, and may pay such attorney out of the funds of the county."

The words "employ an attorney other than the county attorney * * * to assist him," are not ambiguous. We must construe them according to their plain and ordinary meaning. They impose no limitation as to the character of the business for which the assistance may be procured, and we can impose none.

It is contended that the authority to employ an attorney to assist the county attorney is limited to the civil cases mentioned in the language which follows. The use of the disjunctives "either" to assist him,...