The Wyandot pioneer. (Upper Sandusky, Ohio) 1853-1868, 1857-08-13
Limitations is bar to the prosecution ol
any action against the officers referred to
Veiy Respectfully,
J. D. SEARS.
&c"
Upper Sandusky Nov. 25th 1856.
Col. Jos. McCUTcuEoN
Col. Jos. McCUTCuEoN
Auditor of w yandot County, o.

Auditor OF Wyandot County. o.
Dear Sr.-Your note Of yesterday en-
closing copy of contracts orders &c, in the
matter BETWEEN the Commissioners and
William Young for the building of the
Court House,is before me. You ask my
opinion as to the liability Of the Commits
sioners and former Auditor, to refund the
extra compensation paid Junkins & Ken
nedy also as to the propriety of proseeu-
ting the officers, or either of them refer
red to. In reply I herewith give you the
result of such attention as my health and
other enga gements have permitted me to
devote TO the subject l am fully satisfied
that the officers referred to acted without
authority conferred by law. By the act
of March 18th ls So Swans Statute Page
1870 and the acts amendatory thereto, the
Commissioners were authorized to con-
tract for the building, finishing and repair
ing, the necessary public buildings for the
county, or they may have conferred the
right upon the Auditor to contract for the
same.
These statutes p Point out the manner of
exercising the rights and duties conferred
upon the County Commissioners and the
Auditor, and the att of March 9th 1881
not differing materially in the power con-
ferred from the acts already referred to,
and presumming as we must that the
former Commissioners and Auditor pro-
ceded regularly in the letting of the job,
and in the execution of the written con-
tract for the building of the Court House
to the first contractor, Mr.. Young, their
duties in relation thereto ceased until it
became necessary by reason of the fail
ure of Young and his securities 10 perform
the work according to the terms and con-
ditions of their contract, to relet the job.
The Commissioners therefore had no
no right to release Young and his bail
from the performance of the work, and in
the view of the case here given the COM
missioners in allowing the,extra appropria-
tons for the same, acted without author
ity of law. The acts of the Commission.
:. ers when in pursuance of authority con-
fined by law are the acts of the people
whom theyrepresent, and it's onlythrough
them that the business of the County ear
be transacted. If however they go bey ond
the powers conferred by law, their acts
are usurpation of authority, for which
they would be liable to the taxpayers o.
the County whose agents they are.
The other question to which You have
directed my attention is close allied to the
+ one already considerd !; namely did the
: order of the Commissioners furnish the
Auditor the necessary authority for issu
e ling the order for the extra $1,000, thu:
t illegally and improperly allowed By tht
r Commissioners. This question is mes'
n difficult of solution than the other. but af
ter careful and somewhat extended ex
: aminations think the allowance by th'
S Commissioners afforded the Auditor NJ
justification whatever. The duties Of th,
j Auditor relating to the drawing of order'
on the Treasurer are defined in the 18th
section is an act prescribing the duties o
County Auditors passed March Esd 1916
Swan So, by which he is required to issue
orders for all just accounts, debts and de-
mands which have been settled and al
lowed by himself, or by any other person
or tribunal, authorized by law. Before
f issuing an order for paying appropriation
5 made by the Commissioners it is his du.
r ty under the statute before referred to, te
enquire whether they have exceeded THEN
: authority in ordering the appropriation
4 If they have, then he should refuse the or.
4 der. He is the Clerk and adviser of the
e Commissioners by law, and presumed O
course to know their official acts, Leo. Ben
r net VS., Auditor of Portage Co, 10Th O. r
: 54, 81.
/, Under this view of the case it would
: seem that if the Commissioners exceeded
S their authority in the allowance of the
claim under consideration it would furnish
q no justification whatever to the Auditor
!. You further request my opinion as to
+, the propriety of prosecuting the Commits
sioners and the former Auditor of this
county to recover the amount of extra al
lowance paid upon the Court House con-
! tract. I answer that this should, have
!, been done long ago, public servants should
always be required to perform strictly the
, duties and obligations imposed by law, and
when they exceed their oficed authority
to the manifest injury ofthe people whose
they are, as in the case under considera-
ton they should be prosecuted.
By an examination OF the orders for the
payment of Junkins find the last bearing
date June 9th 1852 at which time the Ia
test right of action against cit her of the
officers referred to accrued. The statute
Of Limitations then in force was the act of
February 18th 1881, [swans Statute Page
II r l:c,.tc o,t;opc onroipSf off 1nare