Case Name: Thomas v. Wilton
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1884-01
Citations: 40 Ohio St. 516
Docket Number: 
Parties: Thomas v. Wilton.
Judges: 
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 40
Pages: 516–517

Head Matter:
Thomas v. Wilton.
County commissioners, who act in their official capacity in good faith and in the honest discharge of official duty, cannot be held to personally respond in damages.
Error. Reserved in the District Court of Pickaway County.
The plaintiffs in error, who were defendants in the court of common pleas at the time of the doing of the things complained of, were the duly elected and acting commissioners of Pickaway county. In 1878, the commissioners of that county accepted in accordance with law and undertook to keep in repair the road and bridges in the county, before that time belonging to the Circleville and Washington Turnpike Company, and they became a public highway. In 1877, the commissioners decided to re-build a bridge which had stood on this road and across Deer Creek for a period of thirty or more years. There was a necessity for a new bridge, and all steps towards taking down the old bridge and in the letting of contracts for the new one were taken by the commissioners in conformity to the statute.
The defendants in ei’ror were the owners- of a flouring mill on Deer Creek, near the old bridge. The mill-dam was constructed in connection with the piers of, the bridge. In the .removal of the abutments and piers of the bridge, breaches were made in the mill-dam, through which the water of the creek escaped, and it is claimed that the commissioners wrongfully and unreasonably delayed the construction of the new abutments, piers and bridges for eight, months, and during all that time the plaintiffs below were unable to re-build their dam, the mill remained idle and th.ey lost the use and profits thereof.
On the 15th day of May, 1877, the commissioners entered into a contract with one Padgett to re-build this bridge and he agreed to have the same completed by August 15, 1877. Padgett gave bond to secure the performance of his contract. The contractor having delayed his work, the commissioners on July 2, 1877, ordered the county auditor to notify him to proceed with his work. This was done. On Sept. 18, 1877, the contractor having failed to complete his work, the auditor, by direction of the commissioners, notified his bondsmen of that fact. On October 23d, the contractor aiid his bondsmen failing to do anything, the commissioners directed the auditor to proceed forthwith to advertise for proposals for the completion of the unfinished portions of the- masonry. Nov. 17, 1877, the new contract was awarded to Henson & Wiley, who speedily completed the work.
The judgment rendered against the plaintiffs in error in the court of common pleas was against them as individuals.
Smith Morris, and Harrison, Olds <f* Marsh, for plaintiffs in error.
Charles J. Delaplane, and Page Sp Abernethy, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
Nash, J.
We have examined the evidence relating to what the plaintiffs in error did in re-building the bridge across Deer Creek, and the statutes defining their duties in such cases. We conclude that in all they did they acted in their official capacity, in good faith and in the honest discharge of official duty. The judgment which held them to personally respond in damages was erroneous. Gregory v. Small et al., 39 Ohio St., 346; Stewart v. Southard, 17 Ohio, 402; Ramsey v. Riley, 13 Id., 157.
Judgment reversed.