Robson v. Smith

• Decision Date: 07 January 1893
• Citation: 50 Kan. 350,32 P. 30
• Parties: THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF COFFEY COUNTY et al. v. C. O. SMITH
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

32 P. 30

50 Kan. 350

THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF COFFEY COUNTY et al. v. C. O. SMITH

Supreme Court of Kansas

January 7, 1893

Error from Coffey District Court.

ON, and for more than five years prior to, the 18th day of January 1892, and at this time, C. O. Smith was, and is, the publisher of the Burlington Republican, a weekly newspaper printed and published in the city of Burlington, in the county of Coffey, in this state, and having a general circulation therein. On the 7th day of January, 1892, the board of county commissioners of Coffey county, then composed of W. H. Robson, Stephen Baird, and O. R. Tanner, (the last named being the chairman of the board,) at a regular session thereof, entered into a written contract with C. O. Smith to do all the county printing of the county from the 7th day of January, 1892, until the 1st day of January, 1893. At the time of the contract, C. O. Smith executed to the board of county commissioners of Coffey county a bond in the sum of $ 2,000, conditioned for the faithful performance of his part of the contract, which was accepted and approved by the board,

Judgment reversed.

M. M Bowman, and E. N. Connal, for plaintiffs in error:

We submit that the county board cannot by contract lawfully designate a newspaper to do all the county printing for a term extending beyond the organized existence of such board and thereby bind the subsequent board. See Shelden v. Comm'rs of Butler Co., 48 Kan. 356, and cases therein cited.

Redmond & Junkins, and Manchester & Allen, for defendant in error:

The question involved in Shelden v. Comm'rs of Butler Co., 48 Kan. 356, was whether the board of county commissioners could, just before a reorganization of the board, let a contract to do the county printing for a period of two years. This court in that case decided that it could not. The question in this case is, Can the board of county commissioners, just before a reorganization of the board, let a contract to do the county printing for a period of one year, when all of the members of the board consent to such agreement and join therein? In the case of Shelden v. Comm'rs of Butler Co., supra, the facts show that the period of the contract extended beyond the official life, or term, of a majority of those who were members of the board at the time of making the contract, and that the contract had been executed, before the same was attacked, to a point of time beyond the official term of a majority of those composing the board at the time of making the contract. In this case, the period of the contract did not extend beyond the official life, or term, of a majority of those who composed the board at the time the contract was made. During all the period over which the contract now involved was to extend, a majority of those who consented and agreed to that contract will be members of that board; at least during all that time their official term will extend. It will be seen, therefore, that the two cases are materially different.

In this case the principal question is, Can a board of county commissioners make a binding contract with a printer to do the county printing for one year, when that year, or any part of it, extends beyond the time when there must be a reorganization of the board of county commissioners, by reason of a new member coming into the board of commissioners? It must, therefore, follow that a decision in the one case cannot be held to be decisive of the other.

The case of Comm'rs of Harper Co. v. The State, ex rel., 47 Kan. 283 (27 P. 997), is much in point. There this court held valid a...