Walker v. Stephens

• Decision Date: 13 August 1932
• Docket Number: No. 8774.,8774.
• Parties: WALKER et al. v. STEPHENS et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

175 Ga. 405

165 S.E. 99

WALKER et al.

v.STEPHENS et al.

No. 8774.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Aug. 13, 1932.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. In this suit by taxpayers to enjoin the payment of county warrants issued to an attorney for legal services rendered in behalf of the county, the allegations did not show that the county commissioners abused their discretion in determining the value of the services of the attorney; and for this reason the courts should not interfere with the conclusion of the commissioners as to the amount to be paid for such services.

(a) Upon a fair interpretation of the allegations of the petition, construed as they must be most strongly against the plaintiffs, it affirmatively appears that the attorney had been appointed by the county commissioners as county attorney, under the implied authority conferred by law upon such commissioners. The relationship between the attorney and the county, therefore, did not rest upon contract, but arose upon the appointment of the attorney as a public officer; and the transaction did not fall within the purview of section 386 of the Civil Code of 1910, which requires all contracts entered into by the ordinary or county commissioners with other persons in behalf of the county to be in writing and to be entered upon the minutes of the ordinary or county commissioners.

(b) The allegations did not show that the attorney should have been denied compensation because of dual employment.

2. By the terms of the county warrants under consideration, they were payable out of the general fund of the county. The fact that the county tax levy for the year 1930 did not purport to levy a tax for the creation of a general fund would not prove that the county did not have a general fund from which this indebtedness could be paid. Such a fund could have existed by balances brought forward from previous years; and, if so, it is immaterial that the county may not have levied a tax during the current year for the purpose of paying this claim. Moreover, even if the county may have no general fund from which to pay this indebtedness, this would afford no reason for enjoining the payment and collection of the orders or county warrants issued by the commissioners therefor; it not appearing that the warrants were about to be paid from any fund out of which their payment would be improper or unlawful.

Error from Superior Court, Webster County; A. J. McDonald, Judge.

Suit by W. W. Stephens and others against M. A. Walker and others. To review the judgment, defendants bring error.

Reversed.

W. W. Stephens and others, residents and taxpayers of Webster county, brought suit against G. A. Drew as chairman, and three other persons as members, of the board of commissioners of Webster county, and against W. W. Cole, the county treasurer, and M. A. Walker, an attorney at law, seeking an injunction against the payment of certain county warrants issued by the commissioners, including a warrant or warrants issued to Walker for legal services rendered. The plaintiffs contended that the county was not liable to Walker in any sum for legal services, and attacked the legality of the warrant or warrants issued to him by the county commissioners upon various grounds. By amendment to the petition all allegationsexcept those relating to transactions between the county authorities and Walker were stricken and eliminated. The defendants demurred to the petition upon the grounds, among others, that there was no equity in the bill, and that the facts alleged were insufficient to warrant the granting of any of the relief sought either at law or in equity. The trial court overruled the demurrer, and the defendants excepted.

As indicated above, the validity of the claim of M. A. Walker for professional services rendered is the only question for determination. The allegations in reference to this matter were as follows: M. A. Walker has heretofore been in the employment of the county commissioners as county attorney. The board of commissioners was created by act of the General Assembly, for the purpose of controlling the business and fiscal affairs of Webster county, and the commissioners are now undertaking to control the same. The commissioners employed Walker to represent them as county attorney, by advising them and representing the county generally in all matters in which the interest of the county might be affected in any manner. On March 29, 1929, Bank of Weston discontinued business and closed its doors, because of insolvency. At that time S. O. Brightwell, the tax collector of Webster county, had on deposit therein various sums of money which he had collected in the way of taxes for the general county fund and for school taxes, amounting in all to about $25,000. The county commissioners made a demand on the surety companies who signed the bonds of S. O. Brightwell as such tax collector, and, after some controversy, the commissioners ultimately realized a net cash collection from the surety companies in the sum of $21,840.73, which was paid into the hands of the treasurer as a part of the general fund, and paid over to the county board of education and the trustees of the respective school districts as a part of the school fund.

"The controversy consisted of a claim being filed by the commissioners of Webster County for the benefit of all of the educational organizations of the county who participated in tax funds, as well as themselves for the amount of taxes they were due to recover and place in the general fund of the county. In this service M. A. Walker as county attorney simply advised with the commissioners in the issuance of the fi. fa. against the tax-collector and his bondsmen, and no other service was rendered by him except making one or two trips to Atlanta, for which all expenses were paid by the commissioners. The commissioners finally agreed to a settlement with the bond companies for $9840.73, which was to include all sums due to the school fund as well as the general fund of the county. The county board of education declined to agree to this settlement, and notified the bond companies that proceedings would be instituted immediately, and they did institute proceedings, which later resulted in the collection of $12,-000 more from the bond companies. However, in the proceedings which resulted in the additional collection, M. A. Walker represented the bond companies, and not the county nor any of the educational organizations of the county; and after the settlements as aforesaid were finally concluded, M. A. Walker stated to W. H. Harris, one of the county commissioners, that said sums so collected were net sums to the county, and that the bonding companies whom he represented were paying him his fees. * * * The commissioners of Webster County held their regular, meeting on Tuesday, December 2, 1930, at which time the said M. A. Walker presented a bill for the sum of $800 for services he had rendered the county in the above-mentioned matters, and after some controversy a majority of the commissioners, to wit, G. A. Drew, N. C. Alston, Jr., and M. L. Moore, finally approved his bill for the sum of $700 and issued to him vouchers for the payment of same in accordance therewith.

"Petitioners would show that not only was the sum of $700 so approved by a majority of the commissioners in favor of M. A. Walker, attorney, greatly in excess of the value of any service so rendered by him for the benefit of the county, but that the said M. A. Walker was disqualified, having appeared for the bond companies and representing the bond companies and having been paid fees by the bond companies in the same matters, to further appear for the county as attorney, and the commissioners of Webster County had no legal right to approve the bill nor to issue vouchers therefor, and their act in so doing was illegal and void. Plaintiffs are informed and charge as being true that the $700 which the defendants are endeavoring to pay said Walker under an arrangement with the county commissioners is to be paid in two installments and vouchers for $350 each, which have been issued to said Walker, payable at times to plaintiffs unknown, and on the general fund of the County of Webster. A fee of $100 would have been and is entirely sufficient and fair to be paid the said M. A. Walker, if the county had been liable to pay him anything or if he were qualified to receive the same, and the voucher proposed to be paid as aforesaid is $600 in excess of a fair fee in the circumstances above outlined; and that it is improper and unlawful for the county to pay said voucher or any of the same or any fee at all to said M. A. Walker, because there was no contract therefor in writing, as required by...