Case ID: ala_25/html/0460-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "CHILTON, C. J. —", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

VAN EPPES vs. THE COMM’RS’ COURT OF MOBILE.
    1. The hire of carriages, procured by the sheriff of Mobile, under the direction of. the circuit judge, to convey the grand jurors to the county jail for the purpose of inspecting it, is no charge against the county, although the Commissioners* Court, for many years past, has been in the habit of allowing such items.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Mobile.
    Tried before the Hon. O. W. Rapier.
    The appellant sued the appellee before a justice of the peace, for $18, the hire of carriages procured by the sheriff, under the direction of the circuit judge, while the court was in session, to convey the grand jurors to the county jail for the purpose of inspecting it. The justice rendered judgment for the plaintiff; but the defendant removed the case by certiorari to the Circuit Court, where the judgment of the justice was reversed, and the judgment of that court is now assigned for error. ,
    E. S. DargaN, for the appellant.
    P. HAMILTON, contra.
   CHILTON, C. J. —

The county can be charged only with such expenses as are authorized by law; and unless there is some statute which authorized the judge of the Circuit Court to direct the sheriff to provide carriages to convey the grand jurors to the jail, for the purpose of inspecting it, the expense thus incurred cannot be recovered out of the county. We have been cited to no statute, and have been able to find none, which makes it thus chargeable. The grand jurors receive a per diem compensation, which is supposed to be adequate, and which must be considered as extending to all the services required of them by law. That the Commissioners’ Court has .allowed such items for many years past, serves to show, perhaps, a commendable liberality, but does not fix upon the •county a liability where none otherwise exists by law.

The amount in this case is quite small, it is true ; but to allow it would establish a precedent which might reach far beyond the case at bar, and tend to squander the public funds.

The Circuit Court did right in refusing to give judgment for it, and its judgment is affirmed.