Ruggles v. Cnty. of Washington

• Decision Date: 31 October 1834
• Citation: 3 Mo. 496
• Parties: RUGGLES v. THE COUNTY OF WASHINGTON.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

3 Mo. 496

RUGGLES

v.THE COUNTY OF WASHINGTON.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1834.

ERROR TO WASHINGTON CIRCUIT COURT.

M'GIRK, C. J.

This was an action of debt brought on two bonds, made by certain persons calling themselves commissioners for the county of Washington. On the trial, under the instructions given by the court to the jury, a judgment of non-suit was suffered by the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded non est factum to the bonds, and the statute of limitations to the counts on simple contract, and payment to the whole. On the issue of non est factum, the plaintiff gave in evidence an act of the General Assembly, passed in the year 1813, erecting and establishing the county of Washington. By which act, it is provided that Lionel Brown, S. Perry, J. Hawkins, M. Ruggles and J. Andrews, be and they are hereby appointed, commissioners, with full powers to point out and fix upon the most suitable and convenient place in the aforesaid county, for erecting a court house and jail thereon; and the place to be agreed on by them, or a majority of them, shall be, and is hereby declared to be the permanent seat of justice for Washington County. The 4th section of the act declares, that the said persons are thereby declared to be commissioners of the court house and jail of the County of Washington, and they, or a majority of them, shall be, and they are hereby fully authorized and empowered to purchase, or otherwise procure a title in fee simple for such lot of land as they or a majority of them, shall judge most convenient for the seat of the aforesaid public buildings, containing not less than fifty acres nor more than two hundred acres, and they are authorized to take and receive to them, their heirs, &c., a good general warranty deed, & c., in trust for the County of Washington: provided, they shall not give more than ten dollars per acre for said land. They shall sell the lots on credit, not exceeding a year, or for cash, as they shall deem expedient for the good of the county, and they shall make deeds to the purchasers when the purchase money is paid, and the proceeds of such sale, after paying the purchase money, shall be by them applied and appropriated to carrying the objects of this act into full force and effect; and so soon as the commissioners herein named, shall have procured a sum which may by them be deemed adequate to building a court house and jail, or either of them, by sale of the aforesaid lots, by gifts, subscriptions or donations, they are empowered to let the buildings aforesaid, or either of them, to the lowest bidder on such plan as they may deem proper. The 5th section directs that the commissioners shall take an oath, and give bonds for the faithful performance of their duties. The condition of their bond is, that they will well and truly, faithfully and honestly, appropriate and dispose of all money, property, &c., which shall come into their hands as commissioners aforesaid, for the use of said county, to the sole use and benefit of said county; and that if there should be a balance in their hands, after accomplishing the objects of the act, then they will, under the direction of the County Court, pay the same over to the County of Washington. By the 5th section, they are also required to make settlement with, and render an account to the County Court at each term. The 6th section provides for supplying vacancies. The 8th section provides for a final settlement with the County Court. It appears also by the record, that the commissioners did proceed to execute their duties; that they procured by gift of Moses Austin, 40 acres of land, and of J. R. Jones, 10 acres; that Austin made title to them of the 40 acres, but that before any title was procured from Jones, they laid the whole off into lots, and sold the same on a credit of 4, 8 and 12 months. That Jones refused to make title, and never made any. It was also proved that in the year 1814, after the sale of lots, the commissioners let the building of a court house to one Cravens, who failed; that Cravens was sued on his bond, and that damages were recovered against him; they then let the building of a court house to Ruggles, the plaintiff for $7,000; that Ruggles built the said house, and that in the year 1818 or 1819, the county began the use of the house as a court house, and have ever since used it as such; that the bonds sued on, where given by the persons whose names are signed thereto for the last payment after the work was done. It also appears that some resignation took place and that the persons whose names are signed to these bonds, were regularly appointed, and were commissioners when they signed the bonds. It also appears by the record that on the 30th of January, 1817, the Legislature passed an act whereby they recited the fact, that the commissioners had only procured 40 acres of land on which they had fixed the seat of justice for Washington County. It is therefore enacted that said location shall be the seat of justice for Washington county, and that the same shall be as legal and permanent as if the commissioners had procured complete title to fifty acres of land. Upon this state of facts, the counsel for the county prayed the court to instruct the jury, that the plaintiff could not recover; which instruction the court gave, and a verdict was rendered for the defendant. This instruction is assigned for error. With a view to dispose of this case, we must attend to the objections made by the defendant's counsel to the plaintiff's right to recover. It is objected, that the commissioners did not pursue their authority, without which the deeds for the payment of the money were not the deeds of the County of Washington. The first specification under this head is, that the original act required the commissioners to procure fifty acres of land, whereas they only procured forty. And it is argued by Mr. Gamble, for the county, that the subsequent act could not cure the defect, because the act is retrospective, and that the original contract with Ruggles was made before the act was passed; that it was void as against the county, and that the subsequent contract, or bonds being predicated upon it were void also. To this it is answered by Mr. Bates, for the plaintiff, that the first act is merely directory to the commissioners, and that the main thing to be done by them was to locate a seat of justice and build public buildings, and that, if they failed to procure the quantity of land required, they are liable to the county on their bonds; bat if this position is not correct, then the act of 1817 cured the defect. It may be true that the plaintiff's first position is correct. But we think the validity of this contract can with more safety rest on the amendatory act of 1817.

We are not prepared to admit that the Territorial Legislature of 1817, could pass retospective laws impairing the obligation of contracts, or impairing private rights; yet they had large powers given to them by the act of Congress of 1812, which says they shall have power to make all laws for the good government of the people. Now it is clear, that the good government of the people might require new counties to be laid off, and might require court houses and jails to be built: they then were the fountain of authority on this subject; they were the guardian of the public good; they gave authority here to procure 50 acres of land, and required the site should not contain less; but only 40 acres could be obtained in a suitable place, they then declared 40 acres will do.

Here no private right was infringed, but we find the county content on this subject; we find her, by her officers, up to the time of bringing this suit, constantly recognizing the validity of the amendatory act, and the validity of the acts of the commissioners as to the location of the seat of justice on the 40 acres, and the validity of the contract with Ruggles. As soon as the court house is finished in 1818, or 1819, the County Court took possession of it, and have used it ever since as a court house. They, for the benefit of the county, have had the use of the house for at least fifteen years, they then discover some supposed flaw in the original contract, by which they attempt to avoid payment to the builder; this looks like an after-thought, and is not entitled to the favor of law.

We think it is a settled rule of law as well as justice, that where an agent does any act for the use of his principal, and the principal enjoys the benefit and fruits of the act, it is...