men in a municipality, and in some particulars also a board of directors in a private corporation. It directs, manages, and controls the county affairs, and is vested with all necessary power and discretion for so doing."" These affairs are exclusively public, but are such as pertain peculiarly to local interest and welfare of the county, and affect the county revenues and treasury. In all such affairs this body governs and controls, and is therefore properly called the county government.""

POWERS OF COUNTY GOVERNMENT.

15. The county government has only such powers as are expressly conferred by statute, or necessarily implied therefrom.

67

Chief among these is the power to contract in the name of the county, and for its benefit. Without this power no business can be wisely transacted. The county board or court is general agent and trustee for the county in all its affairs.68 It must have general supervision and management of all county affairs, but must necessarily intrust matters of detail to individual attention and personal supervision of its agents. As a general rule, a contract on behalf of the county must be made by the

64 Pegram v. Cleaveland Co., 65 N. C. 114; Sterling v. Parish of West Feliciana, 26 La. Ann. 59.

State v. Ormsby Co., (U. S.) 93, 18 L. Ed.

65 Shanklin v. Madison Co., 21 Ohio St. 575; 7 Nev. 392; Sheboygan Co. v. Parker, 3 Wall. 33; Ezell v. Giles Co., 3 Head (Tenn.) 586; L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Davidson Co., 1 Sneed (Tenn.) 639, 62 Am. Dec. 424; Bridgenor v. Rodgers, 1 Cold. (Tenn.) 261.

66 Boone, Corp. § 316; Stewart v. Roberts, 1 Yerg. (Tenn.) 389; Maury Co. v. County, 1 Swan (Tenn.) 239.

67 Hopkins v. Clayton Co., 32 Iowa, 15; Ellis v. Washoe Co., 7 Nev. 291; Montgomery Co. v. Barber, 45 Ala. 237; Babcock v. Goodrich, 47 Cal. 488; Highland County Com'rs v. Rhoades, 26 Ohio St. 411.

68 Andrews v. Pratt, 44 Cal. 309; Board of Sup'rs of Richmond Co. v. Wandel, 6 Lans. (N. Y.) 33; Board of Com'rs of Bladen County V. Clarke, 73 N. C. 255.

body in lawful session." In such case, of course, the memorandum of the contract is written on the minutes; but it may also contract by parol through its agents in small matters.70 An unauthorized contract, if within the scope of the county powers, may be made binding by ratification; 71 but contracts made beyond the scope of the lawful powers of the county are subject to the general doctrine of ultra vires.72

69 Clarke v. Lyon Co., 7 Nev. 75; Talbott v. Iberville Parish, 24 La. Ann. 135; Mitchell v. Com'rs, 18 Kan. 188,

70 Ring v. Johnson Co., 6 Iowa, 265; Montgomery Co. v. Barber, 45 Ala. 237; Hopkins v. Clayton Co., 32 Iowa, 15; Babcock v. Goodrich, 47 Cal. 488; Ellis v. Washoe County, 7 Nev. 291; Highland County Com'rs v. Rhoades, 26 Ohio St. 411; Beck v. Puckett, 2 Tenn. Cas. 490.

71 Hawk v. Marion Co., 48 Iowa, 472; Talbott v. Iberville Parish, 24 La. Ann. 135; Clarke v. Lyon Co., 7 Nev. 75; Mitchell v. Commissioners, 18 Kan. 188. But ratification cannot validate acts void for want of power. Wallace v. Tipton, 3 Tenn. Cas. 542; Colburn v. Railroad, 94 Tenn. 43, 28 S. W. 298.

72 King v. Mahaska Co., 75 Iowa, 329, 39 N. W. 636. A contract by county authorities for building a courthouse provided that changes thereafter made in the plan, increasing or lessening the cost, should be followed by like changes in the amount to be paid for the building, which was the full sum authorized by vote of the people under a law requiring the question to be submitted to them. It was held that changes imposing liability for more than the sum voted were void. See, also, Burnett v. Maloney, 97 Tenn. 712, 37 S. W. 689, 34 L. R. A. 541; CLAIBORNE CO. v. BROOKS, 111 U. S. 400, 4 Sup. Ct. 489, 28 L. Ed. 470.

An agreement between the board of commissioners of a county and an attorney, whereby, in return for services in aiding the state's attorney to collect taxes against railroad lands, he is to receive 25 per cent. of any amount recovered, either in money or lands, out of which one-fifth is to be paid the state's attorney, was held ultra vires as to the commissioners, and void. Storey v. Murphy, 9 N. D. 115, 81 N. W. 23.

In Granuis v. Board of Com'rs of Blue Earth Co., 81 Minn. 55, 83 N. W. 495, an agreement between the commissioners and an attorney, under which the attorney was to unearth and bring to light personal property in the county which had not been assessed or taxed for a number of years, in consideration of which service the

POWERS OF COUNTY GOVERNMENT (Continued).

16. In the exercise of lawful discretion the county board or court may

(a) Employ attorneys.

(b) Purchase, hold, and sell real estate.

(c) Contract for the construction and furnishing of county

buildings.

(d) Provide for the support of the poor, and the maintenance of county schools.

(e) And, generally, contract for any object within the scope of the duties and powers of the county.

In varying but appropriate language the statutes of the states. have conferred upon these county governing bodies the power to do such acts as are necessary for the management of the county affairs. This is a general expression covering the implied powers of a corporation, and is probably not essential to clothe the county government with such powers. Having the power to sue and be sued, the county, of course, must be represented by counsel. It has therefore been adjudged in numerous cases that the county government has power in its discretion to employ an attorney to represent and act for the county in its litigation, actual or prospective; 73 and it may exercise this power even in cases which the law provides shall be prosecuted by the state's attorney." But this employment

board of commissioners agreed by resolution to pay him a compensation equal to one-half of all taxes paid into the county treasury as the result of his labors, was held to be void, as being ultra vires. See, also, Municipal Security Co. v. Baker Co., 39 Or. 396, 65 Pac. 369. But see American Stave & Cooperage Co. v. Butler Co. (C. C.) 93 Fed. 301.

73 Lassen County v. Shinn, 88 Cal. 510, 26 Pac. 365; Sterling Gas Co. v. Higby, 134 Ill. 557, 25 N. E. 660; Ottawa Gaslight & Coke Co. v. People, 138 Ill. 336, 27 N. E. 924; Franklin Co. v. Layman, 34 Ill. App. 606; Tatlock v. Louisa Co., 46 Iowa, 138; Bevington v. Woodbury Co., 107 Iowa, 424, 78 N. W. 222; Duluth S. S. & A. R. Co. v. Douglass Co., 103 Wis. 75, 79 N. W. 34.

74 Jordan v. Osceola Co., 59 Iowa, 389, 13 N. W. 344; Taylor Co.

is not binding beyond the term of office of the board making the contract." 75

Buying, Holding, and Selling Real Estate by County.

In the due discharge of its public functions it is necessary for the county to have real estate on which to erect county buildings, such as courthouses, jails, workhouses, reformatories, and the like. The county court or board, therefore, has power to purchase and hold sufficient real estate on which to erect all necessary public buildings; and, where the support of the poor devolves upon the county, it may also purchase a farm therefor. The courthouse and jail must, of course, be located at the county seat; but the location of the other buildings, and the situation of the other county real estate, rest in the discretion of the governing body of the county. So, also, the amount of real estate necessary for each one of these purposes, and the sum to be paid therefor, lies in the discretion of the county board or court.78 In case the county should contract to purchase land for other than public purposes, or to purchase an unreasonable quantity for public purposes, such purchase

77

v. Standley, 79 Iowa, 666, 44 N. W. 911; Sterling Gas Co. v. Higby, 134 Ill. 557, 25 N. E. 660.

75 Board of Com'rs of Jay Co. v. Taylor, 123 Ind. 148, 23 N. E. 752, 7 L. R. A. 160; Vacheron v. City of New York, 34 Misc. Rep. 420, 69 N. Y. Supp. 608.

76 Holten v. Lake Co., 55 Ind. 194, wherein the county commissioners were held to have a prima facie right to purchase land for a home for the county poor. As to power of commissioners of the county to lease premises or rent rooms for county purposes, see Norfolk County Sup'rs v. Cox, 98 Va. 270, 36 S. E. 380; Gardner v. Dakota Co., 21 Minn. 33. But see Ford v. Mayor, etc., 4 Hun (N. Y.) 587; Stewart v. Otoe Co., 2 Neb. 177; Thayer v. McGee, 20 Mich. 195. As to employment of a physician for care of the county poor, see Morgan County Com'rs v. Holman, 34 Ind. 256; Board of Com'rs of Perry County v. Lamax (Ind. App.) 31 N. E. 584.

77 Board of Sup'rs of Culpeper County v. Gorrell, 20 Grat. (Va.) 484; Allen v. Lytle, 114 Ga 275, 40 S. E. 238.

78 Sheidley v. Lynch, 95 Mo. 487, 8 S. W. 434; Lyman v. Gedney, 114 Ill. 388, 29 N. E. 282, 55 Am. Rep. 871.

79

might be enjoined at the suit of the taxpayers as ultra vires, the county authorities having power to purchase only for public uses, and then only so much as is reasonably necessary." Whenever it is necessary the county may also buy in real estate at execution, foreclosure, or tax sale, for the purpose of saving debts due to it.80 Property so purchased, unless redeemed, may be sold and transferred by the county, and a good title thereby conveyed.81 This power is implied in favor of counties equally with other corporations, and for the same reasons.82 A county may likewise receive and hold property conveyed to it,

79 Crampton v. Zabriskie, 101 U. S. 601, 25 L. Ed. 1070; Colorado Paving Co. v. Murphy, 78 Fed. 30, 23 C. C. A. 631, 37 L. R. A. 630; Davenport v. Buffington, 97 Fed. 237, 38 C. C. A. 453, 46 L. R. A. 377; Burnett v. Abbott, 51 Ind. 254. See, also, Grannis v. Blue Earth County Com'rs, 81 Minn. 55, 83 N. W. 495; Wells v. Supervisors, 102 U. S. 625, 26 L. Ed. 122; Warren County Agricultural Joint Stock Co. v. Barr, 55 Ind. 30; Rothrock v. Carr, 55 Ind. 334; Hooper v. Ely, 46 Mo. 505. As to the purchase of property at an excessive valuation, see State v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 53 N. J. Law, 531, 22 Atl. 343. An injunction will also lie to restrain the payment of public money for a purpose wherein the commissioners are being misled or defrauded: State v. Cuyahoga Co., 9 Ohio S. & C. P. Dec. 76. But in Scalf v. Collins County, 80 Tex. 514, 16 S. W. 314, an attempt was made to have a conveyance of a homestead to the county set aside on the ground that it was not needed for county buildings or other county purposes. The conveyance was held good.

80 Cardwell v. Hargis, 24 Ky. Law Rep. 1406, 71 S. W. 488; Shepard v. Murray County, 33 Minn. 519, 24 N. W. 291; Audubon Co. v. County, 40 Iowa, 460.

81 Shannon v. O'Boyle, 51 Ind. 565. "All civil corporations, unless expressly restrained by the act which establishes them, or by some subsequent act, have, and always have had, an unlimited control over their respective properties, and may alienate in fee, or make what estates they please, for years, for life, or in tail, as fully as any individual may do with respect to his own property." 1 Kyd, Corp. 108.

82 Clark, Priv. Corp. pp. 142-144; Page Co. v. County, 41 Iowa, 115; Linville v. Bohannan, 60 Mo. 554.