Webb v. Spokane County

• Decision Date: 05 June 1894
• Citation: 9 Wash. 103,37 P. 282
• Parties: WEBB v. SPOKANE COUNTY.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

37 P. 282

9 Wash. 103

WEBB v. SPOKANE COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 5, 1894

Appeal from superior court, Spokane county; James Z. Moore, Judge.

Action by W. Q. Webb against the county of Spokane on a contract for medical services. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Scott and Hoyt, JJ., dissenting.

W. D Scott and Prather & Danson, for appellant.

Fenton & Henley and L. H. Plattor, for respondent.

ANDERS J.

On January 4, 1892, by an order of the board of county commissioners of Spokane county, at a regular session, the appellant was employed as county physician of said county for the term of one year, beginning February 14, 1892, and ending February 14, 1893, at a salary of $100 per month. On February 11, 1892, the board concluded to reconsider and annul the contract with the appellant, and to receive bids for county physician up till 10 o'clock a. m., Saturday, February 13, 1892; and on February 25, 1892, the board appointed Dr Johnson county physician for the year ending February 25 1893, at a salary of $85 per month. Until February 25, 1892 the appellant performed the duties of county physician, but he was then requested to turn over to Dr. Johnson all medicines and other property in his hands belonging to the county, and the sheriff was likewise requested to proceed and take possession of and deliver the same to said Dr. Johnson. Some time after February 14, 1893, appellant instituted this action to recover the amount which he claimed to be due under his said contract with the said board of commissioners. The complaint sets forth the contract alleged to have been entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant, and alleges that in pursuance of said employment the plaintiff entered upon his duties as such county physician, and performed all services according to the terms of said agreement until the 25th day of February, 1892, when said board of county commissioners, without cause, discharged the plaintiff, and refused to allow him to perform said services as such county physician; and that during all of said time the plaintiff was ready, able, and willing to perform said services according to the terms of said agreement of employment, and so notified said board of county commissioners. It is further alleged that the claim sued upon was presented to the board of commissioners, and payment thereof demanded and refused. The defendant answered by a general denial, and the cause proceeded to trial upon the issues thus raised. After the plaintiff had introduced his testimony, the court ordered a nonsuit on motion of defendant, and entered judgment for costs against plaintiff, to reverse which order and judgment this appeal is prosecuted.

This case, as presented and argued by counsel, involves but one question for the determination of this court, and that is was there a valid contract entered into by and between the appellant and the board of county commissioners? It is provided by statute that "the board of county commissioners of the several counties of this state are vested with entire and exclusive superintendence of the poor of their respective counties" (1 Hill's Code, § 3087), and it seems to be conceded by the respondent, and it could not well be denied, that the board of county commissioners, under this provision, had a right to provide for the services of a county physician by contract. But it is...