Robertson v. King County

Citations

• 20 Wash. 259
• 55 P. 52
• 1898 Wash. LEXIS 517

Syllabus

<p>COUNTIES-CONTRACTS FOR ROAD WORK-AUTHORIZATION BY COMMISSIONERS-CLAIMS FOR WORK—ASSIGNMENT TO ROAD OVERSEER-RECORDS OF COUNTY BOARD—EVIDENCE-COMMENTS BY COURT.</p> <p>Although, no formal order had been made by a hoard of county commissioners authorizing certain road work, the road supervisor and those under him performing the work are entitled prima facie to recover therefor against the county, where two of the commissioners, when asked by the supervisor for instructions, had referred him to the third commissioner, who was road commissioner for the district in which the work was done, stating that whatever the latter ordered would be affirmed by the board, such having been the loose, but universal, practice of the board, under Gen. Stat., § 1937, which provided the boards of county commissioners should divide their respective counties into suitable road districts, and each commissioner should be ex officio road commissioner of the several road districts in his commissioner district, and should see that all orders of the board pertaining to the roads in his district were properly performed.</p> <p>Gen. Stat., § 1940, providing that no road overseer shall be interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract work to be done in the road district under his charge, would not invalidate the assignment to him, as against public policy, of claims for labor earned by those who had been employed under him, and whose rights had already accrued against the county.</p> <p>The transactions of a board of county commissioners authorizing the performance of services for the county may be proved by evidence aliunde the record, where the board has failed to make a proper record.</p> <p>A lecture by the trial judge on matters not strictly in issue will not be held as error, when it does not appear that it could possibly have prejudiced the verdict of the jury.</p>