Court Opinion

ID: 9625372
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:38:27.340242+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:07.359178
License: Public Domain

KEETON, Justice
(dissenting).
It is my opinion the judgment should be affirmed. I agree with the statement of the learned district judge “that the evidence failed to disclose that a contract, either express or implied, could be entered into by the county through its commissioners”.
Powers of boards of county commissioners are limited by Art. 8, Sec. 3, Con*82stitution of Idaho, and have only such power as the legislature may constitutionally confer. If the board of county commissioners could not enter into the contract in question, it must be plainly apparent that the district judge, or any other court or judge, had no power to validate an illegal act. It appears from reading the transcript that the commissioners and plaintiff knew such a contract could not be entered into, and none was. One dealing with municipal officials in their official capacity is bound to know the limitations of such officials to act, particularly in contractual matters. Counties cannot be bound by understandings or impressions of officials or those dealing with the governing board of such municipality.
Further the board in this case never at atiy time acted in its capacity as á board respecting the matter in controversy. They met, talked, but took no affirmative action which ■ was. recorded in the minutes of proceedings or otherwise.
Officials cannot bind the future generation with an indebtedness except by a vote of the people, or as is otherwise specifically authorized by law.
There seems to have been some tacit understanding that the bill for extras would be presented to the district court for approval or disapproval. The district court rightly disapproved. The judgment should be affirmed.