Watson v. Board of Com'rs of Lincoln County

• Decision Date: 28 June 1926
• Docket Number: 11528.
• Citation: 249 P. 1,80 Colo. 14
• Parties: WATSON v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF LINCOLN COUNTY.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

249 P. 1

80 Colo. 14

WATSON v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF LINCOLN COUNTY.

No. 11528.

Supreme Court of Colorado

June 28, 1926

Rehearing Denied Sept. 20, 1926.

Department 1.

Error to District Court, Lincoln County; Arthur Cornforth, Judge.

Action by T. G. Watson against the Board of County Commissioners of Lincoln County. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error and asks for supersedeas.

Supersedeas denied, and judgment reversed, with directions.

On Petition for Rehearing.

J. P. Deatherage, of Hugo, for plaintiff in error.

Robert H. Schaper, of Limon, for defendant in error.

ADAMS J.

Watson plaintiff below, sued the board of county commissioners of Lincoln county for his salary as assistant to the county treasurer. Judgment was for defendant; plaintiff brings the case here on writ of error, and asks for a supersedeas.

One Jones is treasurer of the county, for a two-year term 1925-1927. In January, 1925, Jones appointed Watson as an assistant in his office at a fixed salary, for the same term as his own--two years, or as long as they agreed. The treasurer and assistant have not disagreed. The treasurer did not notify the board of county commissioners of the appointment. Jones had been treasurer and Watson his assistant for five or more years prior thereto, the latter working on the same salary. Each month, Watson filed his claim with the board for services rendered. The board had previously allowed and paid the bills, and did so for three months in 1925, at the same rate, and then reduced salaries including Watson's, without the consent of either the treasurer or of Watson. The question is, Did the board have a right to make the reduction?

C. L 1921, § 7940, provides:

'Deputies and assistants may be employed by county clerks, county treasurers, county assessors and county superintendents of schools, and their compensation and time of service shall be fixed by the official appointing them, with the approval of the board of county commissioners.'

Watson's compensation and time of service were fixed by Jones, the official appointing him. Watson claims also that the board approved the treasurer's act, which the board disputes.

The approval by the board, if at all, was by its recognizing and paying Watson's salary at the old rate, without objection, for three months in 1925, thus ratifying the employment and compensation to be paid. That is what happened.

'The board may ratify or settle allowances for clerk hire which it might have originally authorized, and where the board approves the claim of an appointee, it thereby fixes the amount of his compensation, under a statute not requiring the fixing to be at or before his appointment.' 15 C.J. 507, § 173.

Ratification may be inferred from acquiescence after knowledge of all material facts, or from acts inconsistent with any other supposition. Dillon's Municipal Corporations (5th Ed.) § 797. It is axiomatic that the ratification, when made, covered the whole agreement. The time of employment was that which was fixed by the treasurer, not exceeding his own term.

That plaintiff is an assistant in the treasurer's office is not debatable in this case. The defendant board has admitted his employment by paying his salary at the old rate for three months. and by an unrestricted tender of a less amount for plaintiff's services, as such...