Rogers v. County Com'rs of New Haven County

• Decision Date: 07 July 1954
• Citation: 141 Conn. 426,106 A.2d 757
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: ROGERS et al. v. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF NEW HAVEN COUNTY. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Page 757

106 A.2d 757

141 Conn. 426

ROGERS et al. v. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF NEW HAVEN COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 7, 1954.

Louise Untermyer Wit, New Haven, with whom were Morris B. Straka, New Haven, and, on the brief, James F. Rosen, New Haven, Harry A. Cohen, New Milford, and John M. Murphy, New Haven, for appellants (plaintiffs).

Ellsworth B. Foote, New Haven, for appellees (defendants).

Before INGLIS, C. J., and BALDWIN, O'SULLIVAN, WYNNE and DALY, JJ.

BALDWIN, Associate Justice.

This is an action for a declaratory judgment determining whether the defendant county commissioners of New Haven County were obligated to furnish legal counsel to the named plaintiff's decedent, Sheriff George C. Rogers, and to the other plaintiffs, Deputy Sheriff James V. Porto and Deputy Jailer Edward Kromer, for their defense of two actions brought for neglect of duty and illegal imprisonment, and whether the commissioners are obligated to pay the plaintiff James F. Rosen, an attorney in New Haven, for his services in that defense. The trial court rendered judgment declaring that the county commissioners were not obligated, and the plaintiffs have appealed.

The stipulated facts may be stated briefly as follows: On July 9, 1949, actions were instituted by Milton Chasnoff and the New England Grinding Company, Inc., against Sheriff Rogers, Deputy Sheriff Porto and Deputy County Jailer Kromer, claiming damages for illegal detainer and imprisonment. The sheriffs and jailer requested Rosen to defend the actions but did not inform the county commissioners of New Haven County of what they had done. The actions were tried and resulted in judgments for all the defendants therein after an appeal to this court. Chasnoff v. Porto, 140 Conn. 267, 99 A.2d 189; See A-309 Rec. & Briefs, back of p. 152. Rosen performed legal services for Rogers, Porto and Kromer to the value of $1,511.65. He made demand upon Rogers, his administratrix, Porto and Kromer, but they have not made payment. Thereafter he demanded payment from the county commissioners, but they have denied any liability.

The plaintiffs concede that the county commissioners never expressly authorized the employment of counsel to defend the actions. They contend, however, that there was an implied obligation for the commissioners to provide counsel arising by operation of law because the sheriff and his appointees are county officers and the commissioners are required to furnish and pay for the bonds which the statutes require of county officials.

To charge the county commissioners with liability for legal expenses incurred by the sheriff, his deputy and the deputy jailer, it must appear that they were acting in a matter in which the commissioners had an official interest. Hotchkiss v. Plunkett, 60 Conn. 230, 234, 22 A. 535; Maitland v. Town of Thompson, 129 Conn. 186, 190, 27 A.2d 160; see Pope v. Town of Watertown, 136 Conn. 437, 439, 72 A.2d 235. The actions against the sheriffs and jailer arose out of the exercise of their powers and the performance of their duties in connection with a civil action. They were acting as officers of the law and not in behalf of the county commissioners or in the interest of the county. The county could derive no benefit whatever from what they did while executing the law relating to civil process.

No liability can arise by implication out of such a state of facts, because there could be no implied obligation to pay for services which the commissioners were without power to engage. Public officers, such as county...