The leader. [volume] (Brookhaven, Miss.) 1895-1905, 1903-04-15
CONCERNING R0AD CONTRACTS.
Important Opinion on the Subject by
Acknowledgement Williams.

Apropos what The Leader
has lately said about the condi-
ton of the public roads in this
county, the following official opin-
ion given out by Attorney-Gen-
eral Williams is of special inter
est:
ITO Carroll County, have
your inquiry as follows: The
Board of Supervisors of this
county at its February meeting,
1901, let out to contractors the
working of the public roads of
the county, in accordance with
certain plans and specifications
previously adopted by the board.
Among other requirements of
the plans and specifications and
contracts entered into Hereunder,
was a requirement that all the
public roads named in each con-
tract should be worked up to the
requirements of the plans and
specifications on or before the
firts Monday of September, 1901.
When said date of September,
1901, arrived, certain contractors
had not completed their roads
according to the plans and specifi-
cations for working the same and
the board, upon showing made,
extended their time, and this extern
sion was continued until some
time in the spring of 1902. The
contract for working the public
roads above mentioned expired
on the first Monday in March,
1908, and certain contractors had
never completed their roads, as
required by the plans and specifi-
cations and their contracts, they
have drawn some pay for working
the public roads, but have drawn
none since their extension of time
for completion expired.
g 'Q)' Can the Board of Super
visors make q settlement with
the contractors who have never
completed their roads as required
by the plans and specifications
for working the same and their
contract made thereunder?'
"(2) Can these contractors be
paid for the work actually done
by them, although their roads
have never been received by the
supervisor of the district as being
completed OF worked up to the re-
quirements Of the plans and speci-
fications for working the same and
their contract made Hereunder 2
Answer: A contract made by
the Board of Supervisors of a
county is governed by the same
law that determines and governs
rights and remedies under con-
tracts between individuals. In
the settlement of differences arts
ing out of the execution of con-
tract, however, individuals deal
ing with their own affairs, may
make concessions and comprom-
ises without regard to legal rights
and liabilities. But a Board of
Supervisors, acting for the coun-
ty, can make no concessions and
pay no claims unless expressly au-
thorized so to do by law. It fol-
lows in this case, that the primary
inquiry is, can the public road
contractors force the county to
pay them for a quantum meruit
for the work they have done in
part performance Of their con-
tract? If there is a legal liabil-
ity on the county, it would be fol-
ly to 60 to the expenes and trou-
BILE Of a lawsuit which must re-
suit inevitably in a Judgment
against the county; and on the
other hand the board cannot afford,
in order to avoid litigation, and
to settle troublesome differences,
make an allowance to pay a claim
which the county is under no le-
gal liability to pay.
I'm my opinion the county is
not legally bound to pay anything
upon these contracts, which have
never been completed according
to the plans and specifications
made part of the contracts.
"The contractors, upon the
facts stated in your inquiry, can
not recover upon the contract it.
self, for they have never perform
ed their part; they cannot lecov-
err upon quantum meruit, be-
cause there is an express con-
tract. 1t seems that our court
has adopted the extreme rule in
regard to ones right to recover
for part performance of an insev-
cradle contract. Wooten VS..
Read 2 S. and M. 5S5.
"The same rule is recognized in
Whitfield VS.. Zellner, "a Miss.
663. If the rigor of this rule has
ever been mitigated by any de-
cision of this court / have been
unable to find it.
cit is true, in some cases, a
county may be held liable on a
quantum meruit for the reason
able value of property and ser
vices of which it has received the
benefit.
"a promise may arise by impli-
cation in some cases as held in
Crnmp VS.. Colfax county. 50
Miss. 1917. But such liability will
not attach where an express con-
tract only is contemplated by stat
ute. A. and E. E. of L., vol. Z
(0uJ III \ Ola Coo alco Gacton