Campbell v. County of Franklin
Campbell v. County of Franklin
Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Tills action is brought to recover the amount of two-county orders, drawn by the county judges of Franklin county, for repairs on the county jail. That the orders were drawn as stated in the declaration is admitted, as well as their presentment for payment, and their protest for non-payment by the county treasurer.
It is insisted that the orders were drawn without authority; that the labor and services, for which they were given, were not rendered in making repairs and improvements on county property, but that it was an entire construction of new buddings, and an expenditure which the county judges had no right to order, and that no liability is imposed on the county for it. The services, for which these orders were given, were expended on the county jail, the jailhouse, the repairs of the barn and the erection of a wood-shed for the use of the jail and jail-house. Whether the county judges had authority to order these services to be performed, and to draw these orders, are the general questions arising in the case.
The 3rd section of this act gives to the county judges the general care and superintendence of all county property, and they may order all such repairs and improvements as shall be necessary; and for expenses incurred may draw orders on the county treasury. There can be no doubt, therefore, that under this act, the county judges had authority to draw these orders to the plaintiff, provided the services which were rendered were for repairs and improvements of county property. It is not necessary, under this act, that the repairs be confined to the county jail, or to the repairs required by the grand jury. But repairs may be ordered to all the buildings owned by the county, and which the grand jury are not required to examine. The provisions of the statute are express, that the county judges may order all such buildings to be repaired. They are to determine when such repairs are necessary, and the extent to wMch they are to be made, and if ordered it is binding upon all parties in interest, when it is confined to such repairs and improvements. What will be considered repairs and, improvements within the act, will in a great measure depend upon the circumstances of each particular case. In this case we are only called upon to determine whether that which was done to these particular buildings, can properly bo considered, as such.
This case is unaffected by the act in relation to the “maintennance and repair of a common jail,” Comp. Stat, 573. Its provisions extend to no other building owned by the county. If the county neglect to keep the jail in repair and suitably cleansed, they may he indicted by the grand jury, and the sheriff, under the advice of one or more of the judges of the county court, is required to make such repairs, as shall be recommended by the grand jury. "When the county have provided a jail, such as the law requires, it is made the duty of the keeper to keep it in order, and properly cleansed, and ventilated at the expense of the county ; but this was never intended to affect the duty of the county judges in causing those permanent and extensive repairs which are provided for in the act relating to “ county property.”
"We see no objection to the appointment of a committee by the county judges to superintend the repairs and improvements they ordered to be made. When the expenditure is made under the aot
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.