The Billings gazette. [volume] (Billings, Mont.) 1896-1919, 1900-12-28
COUNTY IS LIABLE.
Commissioners Cannot Dismiss Employee
in Middle Of Month.

E51HME =L--H- = ~
i Middle Of Month.
Attorney General Nolan holds in an
opinion handed down lately that the
board Of county commissioners cannot
dismiss an employee Of the county in
the middle Of the month.
At the recent meeting Of the county
commissioners Of Lewis and Clarke
county a resolution was passed direct
ing Finlay McRae, clerk Of the dis
trict court, to dispense with the SER
vices Of one of his deputies, the reduc-
ton Of staff to take place at once.
Accordingly Joseph Callahan re-
signed, but fled notice with Mr.. Nc
Rae that he would contest the action
Of the commissioners, so far as it
effected his name being taxen from
the pay rolls in the middle OF the
mouth. Mr.. Callahan has been APP
pointed as under sheriff BY Sheriff
elect jeff O'Connell, and intended to
retire from the clerks Office the first
of the year in any event.
Mr.. McRea requested tile attorney
general for an opinion upon the liabil-
ity of the county for Mr. Callahan's
salary for the balance Of tie month.
The attorney general says:
~ am of the opinion that the depu-
ty whose services have been dispensed
with before the expiration of the
month, could rightful17 insist en-
claiming damages against the county
for a breach Of contract. 1t is true
that the number of deputies and their
compensation, within the limitations
prescribed by law, are matters entire
~ within the discretion Of the board
of county commissioners. 1t does not
follow from this, however, that after
a deputy is employed III services can
be capriciously dispensed with during
any portion of the month without
creating a liability OF the part Of the
county. The hiring lis undoubtedly u
monthly hiring. This is clearly ap-
parent from the various provisions Of
the code that require monthly pay
ments.
IF the county entered into a con-
tract with an outsider to perform SER
vices for the period Of a month it
would not be within the province Of
the county to dispense with the SER
vices of such employee in the middle
of the month, providing, of course,
the right vested in the county in the
first place to make the contract.
While there was no express agreement
on the 1st of December with the dep
uty in question that his services were
required during the month ct Decem-
Der, that undoubtedly was the relation
ship of the deputy with the county.
In effect the county said to him that
his services were required for the
month of December, the salary for the
month was fixed by law, and the law
provided that at the expiration of the
month he should make a certain aft
davit, as provided for by section 461O
of the political code, before he would
be entitled to receive a warrant for
the amount due him. Under those
circumstances / do not believe that it
is within the authority of the board,
except for cause, to terminate that en-
ployment before the expiration of
the month, and certainly a purpose to
effect a retrenchment or saving would
not be deemed sufficient to warrant a
termination of the contract on the
part of the county. The deputy, in
my Judgment, has a claim against the
county for his salary for the entire
month of December.