Spalding County v. W. Chamberlin & Co

• Decision Date: 14 May 1908
• Citation: 130 Ga. 649,61 S.E. 533
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Parties: SPALDING COUNTY. v. W. CHAMBERLIN & CO.

130 Ga. 649

61 S.E. 533

SPALDING COUNTY.

v.W. CHAMBERLIN & CO.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

May 14, 1908.

1. Counties — Contracts — Entry on Minutes.

All the material terms of a contract entered into in behalf of a county by the county authorities having jurisdiction over county matters must be in writing and entered on their minutes; and where a petition, seeking to recover on a contract for services rendered, alleged that the county authorities made a contract with the plaintiff, whereby he was employéd to prepare plans and specifications for and to superintend the erection of a courthouse, at a compensation of 5 per cent. of the contract price of the building, and entered on their minutes an order stating that he was employéd to render such services, without stating what compensation was to be paid therefor, the petition was subject to general demurrer.

2. Contracts — Construction — Entire or Severable Contracts.

The contract referred to in the preceding headnote is entire, and the only service alleged to have been rendered was that the plaintiff prepared plans and specifications for the courthouse, and no excuse is alleged for not performing the other service of superintending its erection. On this account, if for no other reason, the petition is subject to general demurrer.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 11, Contracts, §§ 754-757.]

S. Counties—Contracts—Conditions Precedent—Implied Powers.

Before making a contract for the erection of a courthouse, it is not necessary that the county authorities should levy a tax or issue bonds for the purpose of raising the money with which to pay for it, or that they should have a vote of the people upon any question connected therewith, provided they do not contract for a sum to paid exceeding the available funds on hand, and the amount of taxes levied or that may be lawfully levied for the year for that purpose.

(a) The authority to build a courthouse includes authority to employ an architect to prepare plans and specifications therefor and to superintend its erection.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Spalding County; E. J. Reagan, Judge.

Action by W. Chamberlin & Co. against the county of Spalding. A general demurrer to the petition was overruled, and the county brings error. Reversed.

W. Chamberlin & Co. brought suit against the county of Spalding, making substantially the following allegations in their petition: They are architects, and, as such, were employéd on October 11, 1905, by the county, through its board of commissioners of roads and revenues, to prepare plans and specifications for and to superintend the erection of a courthouse for the county. The board contemplated the erection of a courthouse to cost $50,000. Such employment was entered on the minutes of the board, a copy of which entry is as follows: "Griffin, Ga., Oct. 11th, 1905. A special called meeting of the board of county commissioners to consider the erection of a courthouse and the selection of an architect in connection therewith. Whereas, it is now necessary to provide a new courthouse building for Spalding county, in the city of Griffin, Ga., therefore be it resolved, Messrs. W. Chamberlin & Co., architects of Birmingham, Ala., be retained and appointed architects to prepare plans and specifications, and superintend the erection of the said proposed building, and are hereby employéd and directed to design the building and prepare plans and specifications for the same." The fourth paragraph of the plaintiff's petition, which follows the foregoing allegations thereof, is as follows: "Petitioners show that they accepted said employment, it being understood and agreed that they were to receive for their services 5 per cent. of the contract price of the said courthouse, this being reasonable compensation and the usual fee for the services that were to be rendered by your petitioners." On October 30, 1905, the board approved and accepted in writing the design for the courthouse, prepared by plaintiffs by reason of such employment and direction of the board, signed their approval on the design, and entered the following resolution on the minutes: "Oct. 30th, 1905. After the adjournment of the advisory committee, the county commissioners convened and directed Messrs. Chamberlin & Co., architects, to proceed with the plans, details, and specifications of the new courthouse and deliver the same on the 16th of November for approval before advertis-ing bids." In accordance with the directions contained in this resolution, they drew and prepared plans, details, and specifications of a courthouse to cost $50,000, and had them at the office of the board on the 16th of November. The plaintiffs allege that $1,750 is due them for their services performed in designing and drawing the plans and specifications of the building, this sum being reasonable compensation and the customary and usual fee for said services, and that at the time of making said contract of employment Spalding county had ample funds in the treasury to pay petitioners for drawing and designing said plans and specifications for said courthouse, raised for the purpose of providing for same. A general demurrer to the petition was overruled, and the defendant excepted.

Lloyd Cleveland, for plaintiff in error.

J. D. Boyd and T. E. Patterson, for defendant in error.

HOLDEN, J. (after stating the facts as above). The plaintiffs allege that they were employéd by the county, through its commissioners, to prepare the plans and specifications for and to superintend the erection of a courthouse building, and a proper construction of the resolutions of the board is that they were so employéd. There is, however, nothing in these resolutions stating, nor from which it can be inferred, what the plaintiffs were to receive for their services to be rendered in pursuance of such employment. The plaintiffs allege that they accepted said employment, it being understood that they were to receive for their services 5 per cent. of the contract price of the building. A proper construction of the allegations of the petition is that it was a part of the contract of employment that the plaintiffs were to receive 5 per cent. of the contract price of the courthouse for their entire services in preparing plans and specifications and superintending the building of the courthouse, a part of which services they rendered. If it be true, as contended by the plaintiffs, that the order of the board, under which they rendered services in pursuance of their employment, makes a written contract between the plaintiffs and the county, entered on the minutes, were the provisions of Pol. Code 1895, § 343, met, when, as appears from the plaintiffs' petition, what appears on the minutes is only a part of the contract? That section provides: "All contracts entered into by the ordinary with other persons in behalf of the county must be in writing and entered on their minutes." One of the main objects of the law is to prevent disputes as to terms of the contract to which the county is a party by having...