Young v. State

• Citation: 19 Wash. 634,54 P. 36
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Decision Date: 22 July 1898
• Parties: YOUNG v. STATE.

54 P. 36

19 Wash. 634

YOUNG v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Washington

July 22, 1898

Appeal from superior court, Thurston county; Charles H. Ayer, Judge.

Action by Douglas Young against the state. Judgment for plaintiff. The state appeals. Reversed.

P. H. Winston and T. M. Vance, for the State.

T. N Allen, Thomas B. Hardin, and Pierre P. Ferry, for respondent.

ANDERS J.

The complaint in this action alleges that on the 18th day of December, 1894, the state of Washington, through and by its governor, employed the plaintiff to examine, expert, and report to said governor upon, the books and accounts vouchers, and the condition of affairs generally, with reference to the financial management of the state penitentiary at Walla Walla during the term of Warden Coblentz, and agreed to pay the plaintiff for his services in that behalf the reasonable worth and value thereof; that the plaintiff accepted said employment, and did well and faithfully examine, expert, and report to said governor upon said books, accounts, and vouchers, and condition of affairs generally, as to the financial management of said state penitentiary, and in every respect faithfully discharged the duties of said employment, and completed the same on the 13th day of February, 1895; that the reasonable value of said services so rendered by the plaintiff is the sum of $860, of which sum the defendant has paid to this plaintiff the sum of $430, and defendant has wholly failed and refused to pay to the plaintiff any other or greater sum whatsoever; that there remains due and unpaid from defendant to the plaintiff the sum of $430, with interest thereon from the 13th day of February, 1895, at the legal rate of 8 per cent. per annum. The defendant interposed a demurrer to this complaint on the grounds (1) that the court had no jurisdiction of the action and (2) that the facts alleged in the complaint did not constitute a cause of action. This demurrer was overruled, and the defendant answered by denying the material allegations of the complaint, and averring affirmatively that whatever services were rendered by the plaintiff did not exceed in value the sum of $430, which sum has been wholly paid to the plaintiff. A jury was waived, and a trial had by the court; and the court found the facts substantially as alleged in the complaint, and thereupon gave judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the sum demanded together with interest thereon from March 1, 1895. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the state that, if the state employed the respondent to perform the services which he actually rendered, the judgment of the court below should be affirmed; but he contends that no contract was entered into between the state and the respondent, for the reason that the governor did not possess the power to make such an agreement as is alleged in the complaint herein. The only question, therefore, to be determined, is whether or not the governor had legal authority to execute the contract on behalf of the state; and in determining this question it is necessary to ascertain the law upon the subject, for it is well settled that public officers have, and can exercise, only such power as is conferred upon them by law, either statutory or constitutional, and that the government is not bound by the unauthorized acts of its officers or agents. Gibbons v. U.S., 8 Wall. 269; Whiteside v. U. S., 93 U.S. 247; Langford v. U. S., 101 U.S. 341; Orton v. State, 12 Wis. 567; State v. Horton, 21 Nev. 466, 34 P. 316; Randall v. State, 16 Wis. 362 (*340); Lewis v. Colgan (Cal.) 44 P. 1081; People v. Talmage, 6 Cal. 256; Stanton v. State (S. D.) 59 N.W. 738. Our state constitution provides that the governor may require information in writing from the officers of the state upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and shall see that the laws are faithfully executed. Const. art. 3, § 5. And, in addition to the powers conferred upon the governor by the constitution, he is empowered by statute to supervise the conduct of all executive and ministerial officers, and to see that the duties of officers are performed, or, in default thereof, apply such remedy as the law allows. 1 Hill's Code, § 61. It is also made his duty to visit the state penitentiary at least once each year, and as much oftener as he may deem necessary, and provision is made for the payment of the necessary traveling expenses incurred by reason of such visits. Id. § 1184; 1 Ballinger's Codes & St. Wash. § 2777. But we...