The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1881-06-02
To be reported.
BRIDGES d HILL, J
V. No. 27l3.

BRIDGES q HILL,
V No. 27l3.
CLAY COUNTY.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Clay
County, Hon. J. NJ. Arnold, Judge.
In a suit by appellants against the County,
judgment was rendered in favor of defend
ant in the court below. The opinion states
the case, and is given in full.
CHALMERS, c. J.
Plaintiffs contracted with the board of
supervisors of Clay County to build certain
bridges according to plans and specifications
on file. They read but misunderstood the
specifications as to the character of abut-
ments required to be put to the bridges and
hence undertook the cOHtTact at ii less sum
than they otherwise would. They have
been paid the full sum for which they con
tracted and now bring this suit to recover
the difference between the contract price
and the sum which it il manifest they
would have uid If they had properly under
stood the specifications.
They base their demand upon the fact
that they were led into the mistake in part
by come members of the board who shared
il with them who were well aware of the
calculation upon which they fixed the
amount of their bid, and who in open ses-
sion misinformed them as to the require
ments of the specifications with regard to
the sbutments.
1t is quite evident that the suit can not
be maintained for several reasons. If it
were suit between private persons it could
not be sustained without a precedent retor-
nation of the contract by court of chan
Gerry 81 Is To make conform to the mutual
understanding of the parties. 1t is only
shown or attempted 10 be shown that two
members of the board. less than a majority,
/ shared in the mistake. If there was one, and
a reformation could not therefore be en-
forced against the board or those whom 1t
represented, if 1t was committee of a pri-
yate association or corporation, except
upon the idea that a majority of the
members, by their silence when they
ought to h&ye spoken, estOpped
not only themselves but also the corporation
to insist upon the terms of the contract as
written.
Certainly no such principle can be in
voiced against the county. Boards OF SUI
pervisors bind counties only when acting
within the range " their authority and IN
the mode and manner pointed out by the
statute. Their contracts are evidenced by
the entries on their minutes, and can no
more be varied by proof that the mem bers
failed to speak, though they knew that those
/ with whom they were dealing misunderstood
the purport of what they were doing, than
they can be created and established by
silence alone.
/ 1t takes an Affirmative act of the board
within the scope Of it, authority evidenced
/ by an entry on its minutes TO bind the coun-
| tv by contract, and when thus made the
! coRtFect is not to be varied any more than
created by tAe mere silence of portion OF
the board and the n4iS:sSen assertions of 9th
ers. Code 1871, Z I36l-iSS9; LFttDlp .. Su
perrisors, 81 Miss, l07; Hotce q. The State,
80 Mis-. 81.
1t was pIaint!fs' folly to rely upon their
own recollection, or that of others, as to
the terms of the specifications which were
on file. accessible to all, according TO which
they obligated themselves to do the work.
This case ia another shape was heretofore
before us and is reported il 81 Miss, 252-
Affirmed.
Barry & Beckett, for appellant.
F. :. White, contra.
), To be reported.