Tatlock v. Louisa Cnty., 46 Iowa 138 (Iowa 1877). · Go Syfert
Search
Tatlock v. Louisa Cnty., 46 Iowa 138 (Iowa 1877). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
14 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Morrow v. Harrison County
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Morrow v. Harrison County
unknown court · 1954 · confidence medium
If the vote had actually passed, and the failure to record it was a mere clerical omission, we are clear that such omission could not invalidate an order otherwise legally and properly issued.” Other decisions that support our holding on this question include: Long v. Boone County, 36 Iowa 60, 66 ; Tatlock & Wilson v. Louisa County, 46 Iowa 138, 140 (“* * * nor is a formal vote by the board or an entry of the fact of such employment of record necessary to the validity of the contract.”); Jordan & McCallum v. Osceola County, 59 Iowa 388 , 13 N.W. 344 ; Bremer County v. Buchanan County, 61…
discussed Cited "see" Charles A. Stream And Diane B. Mcmahan Vs. Greg Gordy, Willie Van Weelden, And Lawrence Rouw, As Mahaska County Board Of Supervisors
Iowa · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Tatlock & Wilson v. Louisa County, 46 Iowa 138, 139 (1877) (stating “[w]hile it may be the duty of the district attorney to appear for and defend actions brought against a county, this by no means gives him authority to employ additional counsel, much less would his acceptance of the services of attorneys who might appear in the cause bind the county”).
discussed Cited "see" Stream v. Gordy
Iowa · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Tatlock & Wilson v. Louisa County, 46 Iowa 138, 139 (1877) (stating “[w]hile it may be the duty of the district attorney to appear for and defend actions brought against a county, this by no means gives him authority to employ additional counsel, much less would his acceptance of the services of attorneys who might appear in the cause bind the county”).
cited Cited "see" Morris v. Board of County Commissioners
Colo. Ct. App. · 1914 · signal: see · confidence high
See Tatlock v. Louisa Co., 46 Ia., 138 ; Jordon v. Osceola Co., 59 Ia., 388 , 13 N. W., 344 ; Clark v. Lyon Co., 8 Nev., 182 .
cited Cited "see" Morris v. Board of County Commissioners
Colo. Ct. App. · 1914 · signal: see · confidence high
See Tatlock v. Louisa Co., 46 Ia., 138 ; Jordon v. Osceola Co., 59 Ia., 388 , 13 N. W., 344 ; Clark v. Lyon Co., 8 Nev., 182 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." Bremer County v. Schroeder
Iowa · 1925 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, also, Tatlock & Wilson v. Louisa County, 46 Iowa 138 , and Ferguson v. Davis County, 57 Iowa 601 , as to the lack of necessity for a record of the action of the board of supervisors.
Tatlock & Wilson
v.
Louisa County
Supreme Court of Iowa.
Jun 7, 1877.
46 Iowa 138
Tatloclc dé Wilson, for appellants., Blake dé Hammock, for appellee.
Seevers.
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published
Seevers, J.

1. contract: vfces!iey‘sei It is insisted that it is not only the right, but the duty of the district attorney to appear for and prosecute or defend all actions brought by or against the county, and this position, we incline to think, is correct. Clark & Grant v. Lyon County, 37 Iowa, 469. It is further insisted that, as the services in this case were rendered with the knowledge and concurrence of the district attorney, the defendant must pay at least reasonable compensation therefor. In this view we cannot concur, because:

1. This action is not brought to recover a reasonable compensation for services rendered, but to recover for services under a contract; and

2. While it may be the duty of the district attorney to appear for and defend actions brought against a county, this by no means gives him authority to employ additional counsel, much less would his acceptance of the services of attorneys who might appear in the cause bind the county.

2. —:-: pervisors. II. The employment of the plaintiffs by the chairman of the board was in writing, and is set out in the petition as follows: “ I hereby authorize and empower Tatloclc & Wilson to appear and defend the case of F. E. Goble et al. v. The Board of Supervisors of Louisa County, Lowa, on the part of defendant, to take such steps as may be thought necessary by them in making such defense or taking depositions or making preparations for the trial of said cause.

“ P. D. Bailey,

> “Chairman Board Supervisors Louisa Co., Ia.”

The powers and duties of the chairman of the board as distinguished from those of any other individual member are but few, and certainly he has no more power or authority to employ counsel or make contracts binding on the county than has any[*140] other member of the board. The board may, however, whenever they deem it expedient, employ counsel to prosecute or defend actions against the county; nor is a formal vote by the board or an entry of the fact of such employment of record necessary to the validity of the contract. Dillon’s Municipal Corporations, Sec. 399. But the consent of the board to the employment must be shown, and when this is done the chairman, or any other member of the board as agent thereof, may be. empowered' to enter into and make the contract. Rice v. Plymouth County, 43 Iowa, 136.

Now, the petition avers that the chairman, acting for the board, entered into the contract. This being admitted by the demurrer, we think the presumption is, and must be, that he was so acting under legal authority. This, we think, is the fair and natural construction of the statements of the petition. A motion for a more specific statement would have been more appropriate than a demurrer.

Reversed.