Opinion
No. 18287
Opinion Filed September 18, 1928. Rehearing Denied December 4, 1928.
(Syllabus.)
1. Counties — Validity of Claims Against County — Necessity for Legal Basis for Liability.
One who demands payment of a claim against a county must show some statute authorizing it or that it arises from some contract, express or implied, which finds authority in law, and it is not sufficient that the services performed for which payment is claimed were beneficial.
2. Same — Board of Commissioners as Contracting Agency of County When Duly Assembled as Body.
The board of county commissioners is the lawfully constituted agency to contract for and bind the county within lawfully granted powers, and the members of the board of county commissioners do not act in their individual capacities, singularly, or collectively, but as a duly assembled body, as a board of county commissioners, in the way and manner provided by law.
Error from District Court, Muskogee County; E. A. Summers, Judge.
Action by Robert E. Jackson on contract against the Board of Commissioners of Muskogee County. Defendant's demurrer sustained, and petition dismissed. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Robert E. Jackson, in pro. per.
S. H. Lattimore, Co. Atty., for defendant in error.
Robert E. Jackson, as plaintiff below, brought this action on contract against the board of county commissioners of Muskogee county, and alleged that as an attorney he had represented the said board in certain tax matters pending in the federal court, wherein a recovery of delinquent taxes was secured in the sum of $21,905.45, for the benefit of said board, and that, as provided by said contract and agreement, plaintiff's compensation was to be contingent and reasonable; that 15 per cent. of the amount of recovery was reasonable, for which amount plaintiff sued. Particularizing as to the contract upon which his action was based, plaintiff alleged that the defendant board, "acting through its duly authorized chairman, W. T. Cole, in his usual way, without resolution, or other official action by said board, duly empowered plaintiff, verbally, to appear and represent said board and county, as attorney, in said litigation. * * *"
It was not alleged that the board at any time officially authorized or ratified the employment of plaintiff; in fact, as above set out, the contrary affirmatively appears.
A demurrer was sustained to plaintiff's petition, and when plaintiff elected to stand thereon, the trial court entered judgment dismissing plaintiff's petition.
In Board of Commissioners of Tulsa County v. Tulsa Camera Record Co., 103 Okla. 35, 228 P. 1103, this court held that one who demanded payment of a claim against a county must show some statute authorizing it, or that the claim arose from contract expressed or implied and authorized by law, and that it was not sufficient that services performed from which the claim arose were beneficial.
Therein it was also held that the board of commissioners is the constituted agency to contract for and bind the county within the scope of their authority; that such commissioners do not act in their individual capacities, singularly or collectively, but as a duly assembled body, as an entity, and in the manner provided by law.
That decision settles the controversy presented. See, also, Board of Commissioners v. News-Dispatch Printing Audit Co., 122 Okla. 107, 251 P. 607; Butler v. Board of Com'rs of Delaware County, 57 Okla. 748, 157 P. 912; In re Town of Afton, 43 Okla. 720, 144 P. 184.
The judgment is affirmed.
BRANSON, C. J., MASON, V. C. J., and PHELPS, LESTER, CLARK, and HEFNER, JJ., concur.