The Board of Commissioners of Hamilton County v. Webb

• Decision Date: 01 July 1891
• Citation: 47 Kan. 104,27 P. 825
• Parties: THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF HAMILTON COUNTY v. L. J. WEBB
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

27 P. 825

47 Kan. 104

THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF HAMILTON COUNTY v. L. J. WEBB

Supreme Court of Kansas

July 1, 1891

Error from Hamilton District Court.

THE opinion states the case.

Judgment reversed and remanded.

George Getty, for plaintiff in error.

Webb & Lindsay, for defendant in error.

VALENTINE J. All the Justices concurring.

OPINION

VALENTINE, J.:

This controversy grows out of a proceeding originally instituted by the defendant in error, L. J. Webb, before the board of county commissioners of Hamilton county. On December 12 1887, Webb filed with the county clerk and the board of county commissioners of Hamilton county his claim against the county for $ 1,000, based upon an alleged contract attached thereto, dated November 6, 1887. This claim was finally rejected by the board, and Webb appealed to the district court, where, on February 1, 1889, the case was tried before the court without a jury, and judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Webb, and against the defendant, the board of county commissioners, for the sum of $ 1,070, and costs of suit; and the defendant, as plaintiff in error, brings the case to this court for review.

Many questions are presented to this court, among which is the question of the validity of the contract upon which the plaintiff below, Webb, bases his claim. It purports to be a contract between the board of county commissioners of Hamilton county and Webb, employing him as an attorney and counselor at law to perform legal services in certain cases pending in the supreme court, and agreeing to pay him therefor the sum of $ 1,000. It appears, however, conclusively from the evidence in the case that the contract was not made by the board of county commissioners, nor in legal session, nor at the county seat, nor in Hamilton county, nor by all the members of the board, nor in the presence of the county clerk or county attorney; but it was made by only two members of the board, at the city of Topeka, and these two members made the contract without any previous authority from the board, and the contract has never been ratified, confirmed or recognized as legal or valid by the board. Such a contract is of course void. (Merrick Co. v. Batty, 10 Neb. 176, 4 N.W. 959; P. & F. R. Rly. Co. v. Comm'rs of Anderson Co., 16 Kan. 302; Comm'rs of Anderson Co. v. P. & F. R. Rly. Co., 20 id. 534; Aikman v. School District, 27 id. 129; Mincer v. School District, 27 id. 253; Sullivan v. School District, 39 id. 347.)

As the aforesaid contract was and is void, and as the case was tried by the court below upon the theory that the contract...