The Semi-weekly leader. (Brookhaven, Miss.) 1905-1941, 1908-07-08
LINCOLN COUNTY
ROAD CONTRACTS
ATTORNEY GENERAL FLETCHER De-
CIDES THEY ARE INVALID.
Holds That Certain Essential Require.
nents Of the Law We're Disreearded
When Contracts Mere Let.

In answer to a communication
from Hon. e. 4. Brennan, county
attorney, on the question of the
validity Of the existing public
road contracts, Attorney General
Fletcher last Saturday gave out
the following opinion.
] have your inquiry as follows:
At the June meeting, 1908, OF
the Board Of Supervisors Of Lin
coin county, an order was passed
by the Board requesting an opin-
ion from you as to the legality OF
che proceedings by the board in
the letting and making Of con-
tracts for the working of the pub
lie roads in this county. and in
order to secure your opinion, q
certified copy of all the proceed
|ings and orders passed by the
tIoard relative to this matter has
teen made by the clerk and are
placed in your hands for examina-
ton. /, as county attorney, Join
with the board in the request that
you investigate this matter, and
advise US as to whether III your
opinion, the existing contracts
are legal.
The main points urged against
the validity of the contracts are:
First That although the or
.ders awarding the contracts were
entered on the minutes, yet no
contracts were drawn up
and signed by the president of the
board and the road contractors.
Second That the roads were
not divided up into convenient
links as required by law.
The eleven sections of chapter
123, Mississippi code, 1906, pre-
ceding section 4475 have been
adopted by the board and are ap-
plicable in this county.
It is proper / should state in
this connection that all of the
public road contractors made the
required bonds which were APP
proved by the Board of Superyis-
ors on the date of the letting and
awarding of the contracts. !,
Upon the first point presented,
/ have no hesitancy in holding
that the contract between the
county and the road contractors
is not rendered Invalid because of
a failure to enter into separate
written contracts with each con-
tractor. From the transcript of
the minutes OF the board, with
which / have been supplied, /
find that plans and specifications
we're regularly adopted, and in
corporated in these plans are ex-
.plicit directions, not only as to
the manner of working the roads,
but also as TO the method and time
of payment. These specifications
we're, of course, accepted by the
bidders when bids were submitted.
The transcript discloses further
that the bids were all set out in
detail on the minutes of the board,
and that the minutes show exactly
to whom the contracts were
awarded, for what roads and at
what price. The contractors,
as / understand it, recognized the
validity OF the contracts BY enter
ling into bond as The law requires,
and proceeding under the con.
tracts to perform the work. The
entire contract is to be gathered
from the recitals of the minutes
and the stipulation of the bond,
and in the absence of any statute
requiring a separate written con.
tract, think the absence ot such
a document will not affect the
validity of the contract, provided
its terms clearly appear from the
recitals Of the minutes. II THE
law expressly provided for q sep,
arate contract other than the one
evidenced by the minutes as ia
this case presented, different
question would arise, but no such
statute is I'D existence. The
|above statement assumes that the
contract as evidenced by the min
Iutes is not void for indefinitaness,
a point which will be considered
presently. The other question il
lone BY no means free from diff:
Guilty. IA my Judgment, it is an
exceedingly doubtful proposition.
land one which may we'll cause
difference of opinion among well
informed lawyers. IT is compli.
Gated BY the fact that the pro-
vision contained IL section / chap
Ter 1919 OF the laws of 1900, requlr.
ing the Board of Supervisors I'd
divide the reads Of the county In.
| to. convenient links, is not brought
forward in this identical language
lin the code of 1906. Section
1856 of the code, which roughly
corresponds with section i of the
| Act Of 1900, is silent as to this re:
lQuirement, However, section
4474 inferentiaIly refers TO the
failure uf the board To divide the
roads into links as do irregular.
lity. It's provided ia section
4465 that Each road 81 sub
1 division thereof, or aIl The roads
| IN q supervisors district may BIZ
llet under d separate contract 0l
contracts. Necessarily. SOME
/ division OF the roads into eeekioni
l0F links would have to Bis made BIZ
/ the board before the bidders oonlG
/ be advised as To the manner IN
/ which tbe e0nlfaciIs would be IAt
Isfnco otherwise fiddors would bs