Seaton v. Polk County

• Decision Date: 20 October 1882
• Citation: 13 N.W. 725,59 Iowa 626
• Parties: SEATON ET AL v. POLK COUNTY
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

13 N.W. 725

59 Iowa 626

SEATON ET AL v. POLK COUNTY

Supreme Court of Iowa, Dubuque

October 20, 1882

Appeal from Polk Circuit Court.

HENRY RED was indicted in Polk county and charged with the crime of murder. A change of venue was taken to Jasper county.

The plaintiff, Seaton, appeared as attorney for the State, and brought this action to recover for his services. The claim was afterwards assigned to one Doran who intervened in the action.

Trial to the court, judgment for the defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

AFFIRMED.

Sickmon and Barclay, for appellants.

L. G Banister, for appellee.

OPINION

SEEVERS, CH. J.

The District Court of Jasper county made and caused to be entered of record the following order: "THE STATE OF IOWA vs. HENRY RED et al. Trial continued. Lee R. Seaton appointed special prosecutor.

"It is hereby ordered that Lee R. Seaton, Esq., on the application of Ed. W. Stone, District Attorney, is appointed to assist said District Attorney in the trial of said causes. This appointment being made because it appears to the court on the representation of the District Attorney in open court that said Dist. Attorney, owning to the other duties of his office at this term, is unable to try the cause alone, and that the appointment and assistance of said Seaton is necessary to the proper and reasonably speedy trial of this cause, said Seaton to be allowed reasonable compensation at the expense of Polk county."

And afterwards an order was entered by said court in the following words:

"THE STATE OF IOWA vs. HENRY RED et al.

"It is hereby ordered that Lee R. Seaton, Esq., be paid the sum of $ 100 for assisting the District Attorney in the trial of Henry Red, under an order of January 28, 1879, and that the same be paid by Polk county, Iowa."

The Circuit Court has certified certain questions as to which it is said to be desirable to have the opinion of the Supreme Court. The only question so certified, which it is deemed material to determine, is whether the court had the power to make the appointment aforesaid, and thereby impose on defendant a liability to pay for the services rendered under the appointment.

A county is not liable for services performed by an attorney at the instance and request of the district attorney. Tatlock & Wilson v. Louisa County, 46 Iowa 138; Foster & Foster v. The County of Clinton, 51 Iowa 541.

The fact that the district attorney requested the court to appoint Mr. Seaton to assist him, cannot make the county liable. Nor can the united action of the court and district attorney have such effect,...