Case Name: BOARD OF COM'RS OF TULSA COUNTY v. WALKER-TAYLOR CO.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1924-04-08
Citations: 104 Okla. 261
Docket Number: No. 13633
Parties: BOARD OF COM’RS OF TULSA COUNTY v. WALKER-TAYLOR CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 104
Pages: 261–262

Head Matter:
BOARD OF COM’RS OF TULSA COUNTY v. WALKER-TAYLOR CO.
No. 13633
Opinion Filed April 8, 1924.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 9, 1924.
1. Counties — Purchase of Office Supplies— Authority of Board of Commissioners.
The statute! has designated the board of county commissioners as the agent to purchase the necessary supplies for the use of other county officers in the performance of their official duties.
2. Same — Nondelegable Duty of Board.
The statute does not grant to the board of county commissioners the power to delegate this duty to some other person.
3. Same — Statutory Authority for Contracts.
The plaintiff is not entitled to recover on a claim or contract against- the county unless it can be shown that the contract rests on some express or implied provision of the law.
4. Same — Contract by County Clerk — Invalidity.
The contract sued on in this case was made between the plaintiff and the county, clerk of Tulsa county, as the result of a prior board of county commissioners making the county clerk the purchasing agent for the board. Held, the contract is null and void.
5. Same — County Not Estopped to Repudiate Contract.
Equitable estoppel is not available to the plaintiff in an action against a county based on an unlawful contract entered into between the plaintiff and an officer of the county who had no authority to act in the purchase of the supplies.
(Syllabus by Stephenson, C.)
Commissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 4.
Error from District Court, Tulsa County;' Redmond S. Cole, Judge.
Action by the Walker-Taylor Company against the Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa County for debt. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.
John M. Goldesberry, Co. Atty., and James Harrington, Asst. Co. Atty., for plaintiff in error.
Ward & Chase and Geo. Paschal, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Opinion by
STEPHENSON, C.
Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa County v. News-Dispatch Print. & Audit Company, No. 13940, this day decided, controls this appeal and results in the reversal and remanding of this cause for further proceedings in accordance with the views therein expressed.
Therefore, it is recommended that this cause be reversed and remanded, with directions to dismiss the plaintiff's action.
By the Court: It is so ordered.