Seagler v. Adams, (No. 8247.)<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL>

• Decision Date: 09 February 1922
• Docket Number: (No. 8247.)&lt;SMALL&gt;&lt;SUP&gt;*&lt;/SUP&gt;&lt;/SMALL&gt
• Citation: 238 S.W. 707
• Parties: SEAGLER et al. v. ADAMS et al.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

238 S.W. 707

SEAGLER et al. v. ADAMS et al.

(No. 8247.)^*

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Galveston.

February 9, 1922.

Rehearing Denied March 2, 1922.

Appeal from District Court, Anderson County; W. R. Bishop, Judge.

Action by Peter G. Adams and others against R. E. Seagler and others. From judgment enjoining defendants from proceeding further with certain contracts and dissolving a temporary injunction as to other contracts, defendants appeal. Affirmed in part. Reversed and rendered in part.

Seagler & Pickett, of Palestine, for appellants.

Campbell, Greenwood & Barton, E. V. Swift, and Campbell & Sewell, all of Palestine, for appellees.

GRAVES, J.

The commissioners' court of Anderson county, under six separate written contracts for that purpose, engaged the legal services of the law firm of Seagler & Pickett to file and prosecute, or to assist the county or district attorney in filing and prosecuting, certain suits against various officials and ex-officials of the county, along with a number of other persons, upon debts alleged to be severally due the county from them, the aggregate amount of which slightly exceeded $23,000. In each of the contracts the court agreed to pay the firm of attorneys named $500 for their services therein provided for, and directed the issuance of warrants for such sums payable out of the county's funds.

According to the finding of the court below in this proceeding the subject-matter of four of these contracts represented claims in favor of the county having their basis in the asserted failure of different ones of its officials and ex-officials to account to it for public moneys they were by law "intrusted with the collection or safe-keeping of" while the other two of them had to do either with claims against officials and ex-officials not so arising but growing out of alleged illegal withdrawals of money from the county treasury, or with claims against others than officers or ex-officers.

After performance by the attorneys of a considerable portion of the services thus contracted for in behalf of the county, on hearing the suit of several citizens brought to test the matter, the district court of Anderson county, holding that the commissioners' court had the authority to make contracts of the character of the two last above described, but not of the four first mentioned, enjoined all parties affected, including the commissioners, the attorneys, and the county treasurer, from proceeding further under or treating as valid and binding the four contracts so held to have been made without authority, or from making any others of like kind, but dissolved a temporary injunction theretofore granted against a similar enforcement of the other two contracts (and others of like import) as well.

Both sides complain of this judgment upon appeal, the attorneys and the members of the commissioners' court, as appellants, at the court's refusal to permit the enforcement of all six of the contracts, the citizens, as appellees, at the nonperpetuation of the temporary writ against all of them, which would have amounted to striking all down as being illegal and void.

We agree with appellants that none of the contracts were shown to be beyond the power of the commissioners' court, and that that body, as the executive head of the business affairs of the county, did not lack the authority to in good faith employ attorneys to assist the county or district attorney in filing and prosecuting suits on behalf of the county and to pay for such services out of county funds, when in the exercise of its discretion the employment was deemed necessary to protect the county's interests. That in substance is the kind of transaction the contracts here involved evidenced, for there is no suggestion of bad faith on either side, the claims on which the suits were directed had been previously audited as debts due the county, the terms of office during which those alleged to be due from officers or ex-officers were incurred had expired, and the sworn pleadings of the appellants' attorneys in answer to this suit to enjoin enforcement of the contracts not only showed that their employment thereunder was to assist the county or district attorney in filing and prosecuting all the suits contemplated, but that a number of such suits had already been filed, and that the county attorney of Anderson county had in fact joined with them in filing the greater portion of these.

We do not think article 366 of our Revised Statutes should be so construed as to prohibit the commissioners' courts from enlisting the services of attorneys, at the expense of their counties, under the circumstances here presented. The terms of that article are:

"When it shall come to the knowledge of any district or county attorney that any officer in his district or county, intrusted with the collection or safe-keeping of any public funds, is in any manner whatsoever neglecting or abusing the trust confided in him, or is in any way failing to discharge his duties under the law, he shall institute such proceedings as are necessary...